*1 Kludt, Moorhead, appellant. for were within Kenneth J. religion. His actions exercise of harassment, and statutory of definition Ratwik, Roscak, Bergstrom, Peter D. proper exercise restraining order was a P.A., Maloney, Bergstrom Minneapolis, for & discretion. court’s of the district respondent. Affirmed. CRIPPEN,
Considered and decided P.J., and RANDALL and JJ. OPINION RANDALL, Judge. challenges M. Karen Stadum STADUM, Appellant, M.
Karen that it trial court’s determination lacked sub- ject to review her breach COUNTY, Respondent. of This NORMAN appeal is from an order for dismissal of No. C8-93-733. appellant’s declaratory judgment action. We reverse and remand. Court 1993. FACTS 6, 1994. Review Denied Jan. Appellant began her with County worked secretary one the district court
as a judges. judge, replacing the first second secretary. judge, decided he did not need stating her em- Appellant received a letter was terminated with 1989. The effective December no other secretarial told there were positions in the courthouse. The second having reporter judge hired a instead secretary. county employment policy allows to to be laid off
employee who is about employee displace, “bump,” a less senior The senior em- position. a different from all the ployee must be person being of the less senior duties bumped. to a number of other
Appellant was senior requested to county employees. Appellant “bump” employee less sen- be allowed layoff. The she could avoid ior so the re- considered of commissioners posi- were no appellant there quest and told fill. The Board qualified to tions she was appellant: a letter to sent seniority list and after After review of job qualifications your careful review job descriptions of the various *2 218 you
positions September 24, county which would be entitled to On the moved into,” “bump it is the subject decision of this Board juris- for dismissal for lack of matter positions that at time there this are no concerning remaining employ- diction the you qualified which are to fill. ment contract issues. The trial court con- cluded that the action of the Board could county employment policy contains a only certiorari, be reviewed on writ of grievance procedure that allows for media- therefore dismissed the matter for lack of dispute concerning tion and arbitration of a subject matter “interpretation application spe- the of the cific policy. terms and conditions of’ the grievance was never filed under the terms of ISSUE policy.1 the subject Did the trial court have matter declaratory judg- commenced a jurisdiction appellant’s pursuant
ment action to Minn.Stat. Ch. 555 County? (1990) against county. the Counts one and allege county two that the breached the em-
ployment
county
ANALYSIS
created
the
em-
policy
terminating appellant’s
Subject
jurisdiction
cannot be
employment
refusing
to allow her to
upon
conferred
the courts
consent or
into a
held
less senior
waiver,
jur-
and the
employee.
alleges
Count three
defamation.
by any party
isdiction can be raised
at
punitive damages.
Count four seeks
Count
time as well as
the court.
injunctive
five
requiring
relief
the
any damage
reputa-
to correct
to her
1
F.
Roger
Haydock,
David
Herr &
S.
tion
the
defamation.
(2d
1985).
§
Minnesota Practice
12.5
ed.
8, 1991,
April
granted
On
the trial court
appears by
it
suggestion
Whenever
the
motion to
(pu-
strike count four
parties or otherwise that the court lacks
damages)
nitive
as violative of Minn.Stat.
jurisdiction
matter,
(1990).
§ 549.191
shall dismiss the action.
9, 1991,
granted
On October
the trial court
12.08(c).
Minn.R.Civ.P.
summary
motion
judgment
on the defamation claim
summary
but denied
In dismissing appellant’s wrongful dis-
judgment
employment
claims,
for the
charge
the trial court relied on two
contract claims. The trial court
Dodge County,
determined
cases: Dietz v.
487 N.W.2d
there was a valid
appellant
contract between
237
Independent
and Dokmo v.
and the
(Minn.
The trial court refused to Sch. Dist. No.
Dietz from her
*3
Dietz, appellant
seeking
in
not
ministrator
is
by
operated
nursing home owned and
of a
reinstatement of her
with the coun-
Dietz,
at 238.
County.
Dodge
ty. Appellant’s claims are for normal breach
by the coun-
nursing home was overseen
The
ordinary
of contract.
breach
com-
Dietz
ty
of commissioners.
money damages. Appellant does
of contract
wrong-
in district court
menced an action
challenge the
termination. Rath-
not
actual
each
against the
and
discharge
ful
er, appellant cites the denial of her contract
subsequently amended
commissioner.
rights
bump
employees and the
alleging unlawful discrimina-
complaint
her
rights
griev-
of her contract
to file a
denial
damages, re-
seeking compensatory
tion and
evidence of a breach of contract
ance as
instatement,
damages for mental an-
leading
money damages.
rights
The
Dietz did not seek review
guish. Because
parties
will be deter-
liabilities
days
notice of her
within 60
of-
certiorari
op-
mined
the terms of the contract as
termination,
dismissed her
court
“propriety”
posed to the
exer-
jurisdiction.
lack of
case for
cise of discretion in
id.Cf.
ultimately upheld the tri-
supreme
The
court
willing
is
to abandon
claim
lack of
of the case for
al court’s dismissal
for breach of
inconsistent with her claim
Id.,
at 240.
money damages.
Thus,
on
the standard of review certiorari
for writ of
The court held that
appropriate. Appellant
seeking
is not
is not
the exclusive means
certiorari was
scrutiny
the manner in which the
judicial review of the
Dietz could secure
discharged its
function
has
administrative
employ-
to terminate her
decision
id.,
terminating her.
at 239-40. She is
Cf.
it has
ment.
court.noted
seeking legal
determination on whether
long held that in the absence of
ade-
rights
contractual
breached her
remedy,
legal
or
quate method of review
allowing
bump a less senior em-
not
her to
quasi-judicial
judicial
deci-
review
id.,
ployee
grievance.
file a
at 240.
or
Cf.
bodies,
available,
if
sions of administrative
of certiorari.
must be invoked
writ
DECISION
The trial court did not
Id.,
again
at 239. As
ordinary
claim
power
limiting
separation of
cited the
role
reverse,
contract. We
order
for breach of
play
judicial
quasi-
review
claim,
and re-
reinstatement
judicial
bodies.
Id.
decisions
executive
proceed-
trial court for further
mand to the
informative,
Although
Dietz and Dokmo do ings
merits.
on the
specific
Appel-
facts.
not control on these
remanded.
Reversed and
pure
claim is a
breach of contract
lant’s
Dietz,
the adminis-
claim. In
the court noted
(dissenting).
Judge
dam-
request
trator’s
for reinstatement and
The true basis of
respectfully
I
dissent.
ages
anguish
for mental
compensatory
claim for
appellant Stadum’s
highlights the fact that her claim is not an
Norman Coun-
damages
her assertion that
perform a
ordinary
for failure to
on
action
personnel
incorrectly
its own
ty
administered
cause
goods
contract for
allowing her to
into
policies by not
services..
complaint
would
thereby causing
of action
Deitz’s
her to lose
position,
another
require
liabilities of the
decision
employment.
Since
of administrative
parties
bumping
fixed not
the terms of the
was
exercise
to be
discretion,
by Dietz v.
controlled
contract,
this case is
propriety of the coun-
Dodge County,
despite the fact that does not seek employment.
reinstatement of I af-
firm the district court determination that the
exclusive means of review is writ of certio-
rari. *4 BARNA, Petitioner, Appellant, Earl
John
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, Respondent.
No. CO-93-970.
Court of