Wintle-Butts v. Career Service Review Office
307 P.3d 665
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Dori Wintle-Butts, a career service employee since 1983, transferred from the Department of Human Services (DHS) to the Department of Technology Services (DTS) on Sept. 20, 2010; her hourly pay rose from $40.40 to $46.27.
- DTS hiring was conditioned on a criminal background check; DTS placed Wintle-Butts on paid administrative leave after she failed the check on Sept. 23, 2010.
- On Sept. 28, 2010, Wintle-Butts signed a written “Request for Transfer” to return to DHS and expressly waived any right to grieve the transfer or salary decrease; the transfer became effective that day.
- Wintle-Butts filed a grievance with DTS (alleging wrongful dismissal) and advanced it through the internal process; DTS’s Executive Director denied eligibility to use grievance procedures and said she lacked required access for the DTS position.
- Wintle-Butts appealed to the Career Service Review Office (CSRO); the CSRO Administrator held a formal hearing limited to whether CSRO had jurisdiction and then dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.
- Wintle-Butts sought judicial review of the Administrator’s decision; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether CSRO had jurisdiction to hear her grievance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSRO has jurisdiction based on a demotion | Wintle-Butts: placement on administrative leave and subsequent return to DHS amounted to a demotion | DTS: transfer back to DHS was a non-disciplinary transfer; administrative leave was governed by R477-7-7, not disciplinary R477-11 | Held: No demotion — transfer was not a disciplinary action and administrative leave did not reduce her current wage, so CSRO lacks jurisdiction on demotion ground |
| Whether CSRO has jurisdiction based on a dismissal | Wintle-Butts: she was effectively dismissed when placed on administrative leave | DTS: she was not separated from state employment; transfer and leave do not constitute dismissal under the applicable definitions | Held: Court declined to address in detail because Wintle-Butts failed to adequately brief the dismissal argument before the appellate court; issue not resolved in her favor |
| Whether procedural/rules violations by DTS give CSRO jurisdiction | Wintle-Butts: DTS violated its rules and denied due process, which independently supports CSRO jurisdiction under §67-19a-202(1)(a)(vii) | DTS: no such asserted basis was properly raised before CSRO | Held: Not preserved before CSRO; appellate court will not consider the unpreserved rules-violation argument |
| Whether the Administrator correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Wintle-Butts: CSRO should exercise jurisdiction because she is a career service employee and suffered adverse personnel action | DTS: CSRO’s statutory jurisdiction is limited to enumerated personnel actions; plaintiff failed to show any qualifying action by DTS | Held: Administrator was correct; CSRO lacks jurisdiction and dismissal is approved |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Utah Dep’t of Health, 221 P.3d 863 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (CSRO is an independent appellate forum for career service employee grievances)
- Stokes v. Flanders, 970 P.2d 1260 (Utah 1998) (question of agency jurisdiction is legal and reviewed for correctness)
- Sullivan v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining, 189 P.3d 63 (Utah 2008) (issues not raised before an agency are generally not subject to judicial review)