Priester v. Baltimore County
157 A.3d 301
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Theodore Priester, a Baltimore County firefighter, was investigated for sexual harassment and terminated after an Administrative Hearing Board recommended dismissal and the Fire Chief upheld the recommendation.
- Priester appealed through his union MOU grievance process, exhausting steps to an ALJ who issued an adverse decision; he then appealed de novo to the Personnel and Salary Advisory Board (PSAB), which hears such final appeals under the Baltimore County Charter.
- A four-member PSAB panel heard Priester’s appeal, and after deliberation produced a 2–2 tie; rather than issuing an order based on that tie, the Board decided to rehear the matter and to schedule a new hearing.
- Before the rehearing was scheduled, Priester filed for administrative and traditional mandamus in circuit court seeking (among other relief) an order compelling the PSAB to treat the 2–2 vote as a final decision and reinstate him; circuit court granted summary judgment for County and dismissed Priester’s complaint.
- On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held that because the PSAB had not issued a final order and intended to rehear the case, Priester had not exhausted administrative remedies and no Blumberg exception applied; mandamus was therefore improper and the suit should have been dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Priester's Argument | Baltimore County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 2–2 tie by PSAB (with plan to rehear) is a final administrative decision permitting judicial review | The tie was a final decision or, alternatively, PSAB’s decision to rehear was an unauthorized procedure so judicial review is proper now | The tie was not a final decision because the Board planned to rehear; without a final order, judicial review is premature | Not final; exhaustion required. Tie with planned rehearing is interlocutory and precludes judicial review now. |
| Whether the unauthorized-procedure exception to exhaustion applies (Blumberg’s exception) | PSAB’s rehearing is unauthorized and thus Priester may bypass exhaustion | Unauthorized-procedure exception has been largely discredited; rehearing is within agency discretion | Exception not available; Bethlehem Steel and Hovnanian II limit/overrule that exception. |
| Whether constitutional/due process exception avoids exhaustion (Gay’s dual role; lack of written rules) | PSAB’s procedures and conflicts violate due process, so court should intervene now | Constitutional exception is narrow and does not apply to as-applied, fact-intensive claims when agency has exclusive jurisdiction | Exception unavailable: claims are as-applied/fact specific and agency has exclusive jurisdiction; must await final order. |
| Whether mandamus lies pre-final decision to compel issuance of final order or reinstatement | Mandamus proper because PSAB has non-discretionary duty to issue a final decision and remedies are inadequate | Mandamus improper because an adequate remedy exists (await final decision and then judicial review); no showing of undue delay or lack of remedy | Mandamus not appropriate; await final administrative decision then seek judicial review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Renaissance Centro Columbia, LLC v. Broida, 421 Md. 474 (Court of Appeals 2011) (agency straw/tie vote was not final where board planned to reconvene; exhaustion required)
- Prince George’s County v. Blumberg, 288 Md. 275 (Court of Appeals 1980) (articulated limited exceptions to exhaustion doctrine)
- Maryland Comm’n on Human Relations v. Bethlehem Steel, 295 Md. 586 (Court of Appeals 1983) (disavowed broad unauthorized-procedure exception to exhaustion)
- Bd. of Pub. Works v. K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC, 443 Md. 199 (Court of Appeals 2015) (reaffirmed exhaustion principles; declined to permit interlocutory mandamus)
- Soley v. State Comm’n on Human Relations, 277 Md. 521 (Court of Appeals 1976) (exhaustion required where legislature provides administrative remedy)
- Laurel Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. Video Lottery Facility Location Comm’n, 409 Md. 445 (Court of Appeals 2009) (must exhaust when statute grants primary/exclusive administrative remedy)
- Maryland Transit Admin. v. (MTA case), 294 Md. 225 (Court of Appeals 1982) (agency is competent to resolve statutory interpretation; exhaustion generally required)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (two-part finality test for agency action)