Williams v. Department of Public Safety
369 P.3d 760
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Brett L. Williams, a former Colorado State Patrol (CSP) captain with an exemplary record, resigned in 2010 and applied for reinstatement three months later.
- During a required polygraph pretest interview, Williams disclosed (1) inadvertently viewing child pornography on a website and (2) a 2006 sexual encounter in Thailand with a man; the latter revealed his sexual orientation.
- The polygraph examiner recorded a "significant reaction" to a question about concealing unlawful sexual conduct; Williams was told he failed and CSP denied reinstatement within about three business days after the exam.
- CSP officials relied on a quick internal inquiry (delegated to subordinates) concluding denial could be based solely on polygraph results; higher-level decisionmakers did not independently investigate or consult counsel/HR.
- Williams filed a complaint with the State Personnel Board alleging arbitrary/capricious action and discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA); the ALJ and Board found discrimination and awarded back pay, front pay, and fees; CSP appealed to this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board jurisdiction to review claim that CSP acted arbitrarily or capriciously | Board may review because nonemployee discrimination appeals are "appealable to the board," and Board can reverse arbitrary actions tied to those appeals | Director, not Board, has express statutory authority over arbitrary/capricious claims by any person; statutes do not grant Board that power for nonemployees | Reversed ALJ/Board on this claim; remanded so Board can refer the arbitrary/capricious claim to the Director (notice/tolling issue left to Director) |
| Whether CSP discriminated based on sexual orientation (prima facie and inference) | Williams: exemplary record, swift denial after polygraph, pre-polygraph disclosures and prior anti-gay remarks support inference of discrimination | CSP: asserted legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (polygraph reaction, Thailand conduct, viewing child pornography) | Affirmed Board/ALJ: sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer discrimination |
| Whether CSP's stated reasons were pretext / cat's paw liability | Williams: procedural irregularities, departures from policy, disparate treatment, timing, and reliance on biased subordinates show pretext and that decisionmakers relied on biased reports | CSP: relied on polygraph result and applicant disclosures as legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons | Affirmed: employer reasons were pretextual; cat's paw liability established because decisionmakers accepted expedited subordinate investigation without independent inquiry |
| Availability of front pay under pre-2015 CADA and remoteness of remedy | Williams/Board: front pay is an equitable substitute for reinstatement when reinstatement is infeasible | CSP: former CADA remedies list did not authorize front pay; amendment in 2015 adding front pay shows it was not previously available | Reversed Board's front-pay award: former (pre-2015) CADA did not authorize front pay; Board may reconsider reinstatement on remand |
| Attorney fees award under personnel code | Williams: CSP acted in bad faith and frivolously, warranting fees | CSP: decision had reasonable basis; challenged fee award | Affirmed: record supports bad-faith finding and award of attorney fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawes v. Colo. Div. of Ins., 65 P.3d 1008 (Colo. 2008) (agency determination of its own jurisdiction reviewed de novo; deference may apply to agency statutory interpretations)
- Xerox Corp. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 87 P.3d 189 (Colo. App. 2008) (agency regulation must be a permissible construction when statute is ambiguous)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden-shifting in employment discrimination cases)
- EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006) (cat's paw theory and requirement that biased subordinate's actions cause the adverse action)
- Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2001) (definition and role of front pay as an equitable remedy)