Sigstedt v. Colorado Mountain Local College District, 550 F.Supp.3d 928

Sigstedt was a full‑time biology professor at Colorado Mountain College on a year‑to‑year employment agreement; his 2019–2020 term ran Aug. 19, 2019–May 8, 2020.
He took leave in late 2019 for his father and bereavement in early 2020; in March 2020 the College awarded him a merit payment.
On May 19, 2020 the College (via Gianneschi) notified Sigstedt his contract would not be renewed for incompetence, citing failure to meet an improvement plan; an appeal right was provided.
A one‑hour peer review panel hearing followed; the panel denied requests to continue, present witnesses, or reconvene; the panel and President Hauser affirmed nonrenewal and the decision was final.
Sigstedt sued (removal to federal court) asserting breach of contract (College and Board), Fourteenth Amendment procedural‑due‑process, a claim under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 23‑71‑123, and C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) review. Defendants moved to dismiss the Board from the breach claim and to dismiss the § 23‑71‑123 claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board can be liable for breach of the written Employment Agreement	Sigstedt contends the Agreement and incorporated College policies govern and create enforceable obligations; Board is liable	The Agreement names only the College; Colorado law makes the local college district (the College) the contracting party, not the Board	Court: Dismiss breach claim against Board based on the Employment Agreement with prejudice (Board not a party to the contract)
Whether the Board can be held liable for breach of Policy 6.26 (60‑day nonrenewal notice)	Sigstedt argues Policy 6.26 was adopted by the Board and is incorporated into his Agreement, so the Board can be sued for violating that policy	Defendants say the Policy is a College policy and the Board, not being the employer, cannot be sued for breach	Court: Dismissed without prejudice as to Board for breach of Policy 6.26 (plaintiff did not plausibly allege Board was his employer)
Whether § 23‑71‑123 creates a private right of action for faculty	Sigstedt urges enforcement of § 23‑71‑123 because it vests hiring/termination authority in the Board and the Board’s delegation to the President violated the statute	Defendants argue the statute contains no express private right and legislative silence precludes implying one	Court: § 23‑71‑123 does not create an implied private right; claim dismissed with prejudice

Ridge at Red Hawk, 493 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard for assessing Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1987) (employer may be liable where policy creates implied contract or estoppel)
Dias v. City & County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2009) (cautious approach to dismissal; well‑pleaded facts accepted)
City of Arvada ex rel. Arvada Police Dep’t v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth., 403 P.3d 609 (Colo. 2017) (test for implying a private right of action under Colorado law)
Quintano v. Indus. Comm’n, 495 P.2d 1137 (Colo. 1972) (legislative intent must be clear to imply civil liability)