Osorio v. Ross
1 CA-CV 20-0543
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Osorio, a Yavapai County deputy, was on light duty after a work injury; a lieutenant repeatedly sought private medical details and allegedly surveilled his appointments and home.
- Osorio complained to HR, refused an in-person meeting without a union rep, and was accused of insubordination; a captain instructed him to log in, resign, and go home and then placed him on administrative leave and under investigation.
- Osorio took previously approved vacation time; while he was away, Sheriff Mascher issued a notice of termination. Osorio emailed HR to appeal; HR Director Ross replied that he had voluntarily resigned by abandoning his job and could not appeal.
- Plaintiffs (Osorio and AZCOPS) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking reinstatement and a declaration that Osorio did not abandon his job and was entitled to appeal under Yavapai policies and the POBR.
- The superior court granted defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion: it held AZCOPS lacked standing and dismissed Osorio’s claims as barred by A.R.S. § 23-1501 and for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AZCOPS organizational standing | AZCOPS has standing (Osorio is a member; organization has interest in members’ employment rights) | Membership alone is insufficient; no particularized organizational injury alleged | Affirmed: AZCOPS lacks organizational standing |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies / Commission appeal | Osorio attempted informal resolution; formal appeal would be futile because defendants already denied his right to appeal | Osorio never filed the formal notice required by Yavapai Policy, so he failed to exhaust remedies | Reversed superior court’s jurisdictional bar: because defendants’ pleadings denied any right to appeal, formal appeal would have been futile and exhaustion requirement does not deprive court of jurisdiction |
| Declaratory relief: reinstatement vs. right to appeal | Requests declaration that Osorio did not abandon job and is entitled to appeal (and reinstatement) | Reinstatement is outside AUDJA; HR’s reply only an informal opinion, not a denial | Court may not order reinstatement under AUDJA, but may decide the narrow declaratory question whether Osorio was entitled to an appeal; remanded to resolve that issue |
| Injunctive relief / mandatory reinstatement or order to follow policies | Mandatory injunction ordering reinstatement or requiring Defendants to follow YCSO policies and POBR is appropriate to vindicate rights | Court should not order reinstatement; broad order to obey law is improper | Affirmed denial of mandatory reinstatement injunction; broad commands to obey law are disfavored; if declaratory relief shows ongoing denial, other remedies (mandamus/special action) may be pursued |
| Statutory bar (A.R.S. § 23-1501) and POBR application | § 23-1501 should not bar declaratory relief about appeal or POBR protections | Superior court relied on § 23-1501 to dismiss claims | To the extent the court held § 23-1501 barred a declaratory determination about the right to appeal, that was error; POBR-related issues should be decided by the Commission if appeal proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce, 195 Ariz. 358 (App. 1999) (standard for reviewing judgment on the pleadings)
- Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417 (2008) (notice-pleading requirements under Rule 8)
- Zeigler v. Kirschner, 162 Ariz. 77 (App. 1989) (futility exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Redlon, 215 Ariz. 13 (App. 2007) (Merit System Commission may decide whether separation was resignation or dismissal)
- Black v. Siler, 96 Ariz. 102 (1964) (declaratory relief cannot compel affirmative performance)
- NLRB v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U.S. 426 (1941) (courts reluctant to issue broad orders merely commanding compliance with law)
- Home Builders Ass’n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard, 219 Ariz. 374 (App. 2008) (organizational standing requires a legitimate organizational interest in a real controversy)