Ritzert v. Board of Education of the Academy School District No. 20
2015 CO 66
Colo.2015Background
- Cathy Ritzert, a tenured special-education teacher, was placed on paid administrative leave after a parent complaint and told the District would recommend her dismissal; she refused to resign.
- After months with no formal dismissal, Ritzert accepted a job with a neighboring district to mitigate damages while remaining employed by the District and offering to return if reinstated.
- Once the District learned of her new job, it ordered her to return as a floating substitute; Ritzert did not comply and the District filed dismissal charges including insubordination.
- An impartial hearing officer found the return order was unreasonable and pretextual, recommended retention, and rejected insubordination and other charges.
- The District Board disregarded the hearing officer’s ultimate finding on reasonableness, found Ritzert insubordinate, and dismissed her; the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding the Board’s insubordination-based dismissal was arbitrary and capricious because the Board failed to ground its ultimate finding of reasonableness in the hearing officer’s evidentiary findings and did not consider all such findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "reasonableness" of a supervisor's order in a TECDA insubordination claim is an evidentiary fact or an ultimate fact | Ritzert: the order was unreasonable given District conduct (pretext, told her not to return, encouraged job search) | Board: reasonableness is for the Board to decide and the order to return was reasonable | Court: Reasonableness is an ultimate fact (mixed law/fact) for the Board to decide, but subject to limits |
| Whether the Board may substitute its ultimate-fact finding without being fully warranted by the hearing officer's evidentiary findings | Ritzert: Board must ground any contrary ultimate finding in the hearing officer’s evidentiary findings and consider all such findings | Board: free to reject hearing officer’s ultimate conclusion that the order was unreasonable and rely on its view of contractual obligations | Court: Board may reach a different ultimate finding, but that finding must be fully warranted by and made in consideration of the hearing officer’s evidentiary findings; here the Board’s finding was arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether a teacher placed on open-ended leave may take other employment to mitigate damages and accept only the pay difference while awaiting dismissal proceedings | Ritzert: may mitigate by taking other work and offering to remit difference until dismissal resolved | District: teacher had contractual duty to be available and could not take conflicting employment | Court: Declined to decide; left the mitigation policy question to the Legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- Blaine v. Moffat Cty. Sch. Dist. Re No. 1, 748 P.2d 1280 (Colo. 1988) (hearing officer evidentiary findings bind the board; ultimate findings must be warranted by those facts)
- Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981) (board may not base ultimate findings on its own raw fact-finding; hearing officer’s written evidentiary findings control the record)
- Flaming v. Bd. of Educ. of W. Yuma Sch. Dist. RJ-1, 938 P.2d 151 (Colo. 1997) (reasonableness issues are mixed questions; boards get deference but must be supported by hearing officer findings)
- Ware v. Morgan Cty. Sch. Dist. No. RE-3, 748 P.2d 1295 (Colo. 1988) (insubordination defined as willful refusal to obey a reasonable order)
- Blair v. Lovett, 582 P.2d 668 (Colo. 1978) (bifurcated dismissal procedure requires remand if hearing officer’s findings are insufficient)
- deKoevend v. Bd. of Educ. of W. End Sch. Dist. RE-2, 688 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984) (board’s ultimate findings must be fully warranted by evidentiary findings)
- Adams Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 50 v. Heimer, 919 P.2d 786 (Colo. 1996) (appellate review of board action limited to hearing officer’s findings and recommendation)
- State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. McCroskey, 880 P.2d 1188 (Colo. 1994) (distinguishing evidentiary vs. ultimate findings; ultimate findings often mix law and fact)