406 P.3d 312
Wyo.2017Background
- Schmitz (then 63) alleged age discrimination by the Wyoming Department of Corrections (DOC) and filed administrative charges with WFS and the EEOC; WFS found probable cause but DOC declined to participate in conciliation or hearing.
- EEOC issued a right-to-sue; Schmitz later sought a WFS contested-case hearing; the independent hearing examiner issued a default-style Final Agency Order (July 2014) and then a Remedy Hearing Decision (Nov. 2014) denying damages and stating the case had been administratively closed.
- Schmitz petitioned the district court for judicial review, naming the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WFS) as the sole respondent; he listed DOC as a party in the petition but did not name DOC as a respondent.
- The district court granted WFS’s motion and dismissed WFS as the sole respondent on December 4, 2015; months later Schmitz moved to substitute or join DOC as a respondent, which the district court denied for lack of jurisdiction.
- Schmitz filed a late appeal from the dismissal and the denial of his motion to add DOC; the Supreme Court considered whether it had jurisdiction given the failure to file a timely notice of appeal from the December 4, 2015 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of the sole named respondent (WFS) was an appealable final order, and whether failure to appeal timely deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction | Schmitz: order was not final because DOC remained an adverse party and he sought to add DOC as respondent; dismissal did not resolve all issues | WFS: dismissal of the only named respondent finally determined the action; Schmitz’s later attempt to add DOC came too late | Court: Dismissal of WFS was a final, appealable order under W.R.A.P. 1.05(a); Schmitz’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprived the Court of jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vance v. City of Laramie, 382 P.3d 1104 (Wyo. 2016) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; jurisdictional rules are mandatory)
- Bridge v. State Dep’t of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Comm’n, 896 P.2d 759 (Wyo. 1995) (petition for review that names a proper respondent can be cured by timely joinder of a necessary party)
- Wyoming Outdoor Council v. Wyo. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 225 P.3d 1054 (Wyo. 2010) (if a proper respondent is named, additional respondents may be added after filing)
- Olmstead v. Cattle, Inc., 541 P.2d 49 (Wyo. 1975) (generally dismissal of one of multiple defendants is not appealable)
- In re E.R.C.K., 314 P.3d 1170 (Wyo. 2013) (describing three characteristics of an appealable order under Rule 1.05(a): affects a substantial right, determines the merits, and resolves all outstanding issues)