*1 STROZEWSKI, Appellant, Michael SPRINGFIELD, Respondent.
CITY of
No. 76407. Missouri,
Supreme Court of
En Banc. Lewis, Harris, Spring- R.
Timothy John J. field, appellant. Atty., Budd, Springfield, Asst.
Dennis respondent. HOLSTEIN, Judge. Strozewski, Mis- Springfield,
Michael declaratory souri, sought judg- firefighter, and vaca- rights ment A City’s rules. merit tion benefits under summary judgment filed motion for *2 1986, court, City by expired. trial and sustained the trial court. RSMo had The “[Tjhere stated, appealed The case equivocal ruling, was the Missouri Court a somewhat Appeals, Following City’s] of Southern District. are other set forth [the remedies opinion, granted Court transfer. Rule regulations ... there has been no evi- [and] 8S.03. Affirmed. pursued plaintiff that has these dence sustaining I’m the motion for remedies.... petition, According to he was Strozewski’s summary judgment purely simply on the employed firefighter commencing aas Octo- five-year of limitations.” statute 20,1980. 3,1981, August position On his ber was eliminated and he was laid off from by The sole issue raised Strozewski on 3, layoff work. The continued until October appeal is a that of limita the statute 1982, when he was The reinstated. total on tions had run the claim he asserts layoff year time was one and two months. petition declaratory judgment. his for The reinstated, entry employment When City only by arguing counters that not had 1981, 20, year' as was treated December one the statute of limitations run but that Stro- 20, and two months later than October 1980. zewski failed to exhaust his administrative 12.2(f), Springfield Under Merit Rule “[a] remedies. The exhaustion of remedies issue layoff year than more one shall constitute must first be addressed because is one however, city; break in service with for subject jurisdiction. matter Green v. 1981-82, layoffs occurring during year fiscal (Mo. Louis, 794, 796 banc St. 870 S.W.2d city a break in shall service with occur 1994). subject If the trial court lacked mat only layoff years.” if the is more than two jurisdiction, proceedings ter are absolute petition Strozewski’s claims that because his ly only void and the recourse was to dismiss layoff during occurred the 1981-82 fiscal Dietary the cause. Collins & Assoc. Consul year, period he was entitled to credit for the tants, Inc. v. Labor Indus. & Relations layoff purposes determining his Comm’n, (Mo. 72A banc wages and accrual of vacation. 1987). addition, if the trial court lacked jurisdiction, firefighter’s steps pay
There are five in the its declarations Assignment step nullity. scale. is based on of limitations statute are a longevity. firefighter placed A new on Any analysis procedure of administrative Step proceeds through One successive Const, V, begins § with Mo. art. which steps anniversary year each on the decisions, part: findings, states in “All final employment. petition he any on rules and orders [sic] progressed claims he that should have body existing officer or under constitu- through steps so as to moved have law, by judicial quasi- tion or are or Step 20,1984. commencing Five October He judicial private rights, shall be affect reinstated, being claims that after his ad- subject by the courts as direct review through steps delayed vancement added.) provided (Emphasis law.” step fourteen months at each so that he was placed Step until Five December statutory Chapter provides 27, 1992, 1985. This lawsuit was filed review of administra framework years after he seven Strozewski claims could legal rights re tive decisions. When are Step been have elevated to Five and six hearing, quired law to decided after a years actually after Strozewski was elevated § proceeding is a “contested case.” 536.- Step petition The no Five. contains alle- 010(2), case, In a 1986. contested gations any lost benefits since December administrative remedies must exhausted 20,1985. It also fails to claim that he will in prior the future be denied benefits. contrast, By an administrative deci judgment if made City’s summary motion sion is uncontested the decision is any grounds Among requirement without adversarial raised several for dismissal. procedural at which a measure of those was that Strozewski had failed to ex- formality Hagely haust his and that is followed. Board administrative remedies 516.120(1), Groves, limitations, § Educ. 841 S.W.2d the statute Webster demoted, or 1992). Thus, suspended (Mo. he was in uncontested banc Decisions compensation. reduced in if the eases are legal rights, duties affects “the decision ap- However, question little there is 536.150.1, privileges person.” City’s griev- pursued the pellant could have *3 require- That has no statute assign- challenge step procedure to the ance reme- of exhaustion of administrative ment an is said to exist “when grievance ment. A Indeed, provides, “Nothing in this dies. annoyed with or employee feels dissatisfied the ... to limit section shall construed no has aspect of his work over which he some jurisdiction any scope any court or the 13.5(a). steps The in control.” Merit Rule remedy in the absence of this sec- available the procedure complaining include to that Thus, ad- tion.” 536.150.3. exhaustion of dissatisfied, appealing in supervisor, then if jurisdictional ministrative remedies is a head, department setting writing forth to the prerequisite in uncontested cases. See Kish the manual on which the sections the Dist., R-IV Chilhowee Sch. S.W.2d unsatisfied, and, if still grievance is based (Mo.App.1991). city manager. Merit appealing to the See 13.5(c). is almost iden- procedure Rule This peti It is not clear from StrozewsM’s 23.2, in Rule tical to that set out Merit employment step assignment tion how the part, “Any employee shall have provides in reinstatement, following was made his al any request right the the to consideration though appear it does not to the result of may application of respect with to he have quasi-judicial ap or It decision. Compensation and Plans Classification pears merely instead to have a ministe been position.” his Nevertheless, if rial or clerical act. Strozew- provides a grievance procedure While the right hearing challenge ski a legal has to a communicating complaints method step assignment, he first exhaust must management, through ascending levels of remedy seeking ju his administrative before deprives formality absence of it of the adver- dicial relief. quality con- sarial that is characteristic of a provision or is No statute constitutional re- hearing tested case. No notice of is requires hearing or cited found that a hearing tribu- quired, no real occurs before a step assignment a determine the reinstat- is presented, nal at which evidence tested However, firefighter. ed claims that refuted, evidentiary is and and no record system regulations, rules under merit purposes maintained for ordinance, adopted which have been as an provide grievance procedure The does appellant pursued griev- have either a could a qualifies that it as the kind of appeal personnel or a ance direct Thus, contested case. exhaustion of remedy board. latter The was not available. grievance procedure prerequisite is not a board, personnel appeal In order to to the judicial review. Strozewski must establish that he “de- moted, question of the suspended compensa- or reduced in This returns us 516.120(1) 13Ma). im tion.” Merit Rule Strozewski statute of limitations. Section year period all improperly poses no that he was a limitation makes sus- five contracts, pended obligations in liabili upon or that he suffered a reduction “actions demotion, year A compensation. Appellant as that term is ties.” concedes that five 516.120(1) system regulations, in limitations of used the merit refers statute of section position alleged The employee applies to a movement of an his claim. miscalcula However, which, turn, longevity in “a in 1982. a “lower class” means tion of occurred pay pay argues his did not accrue having grade class lower than the he entire claim says he grade position in he 1982. He of the which the individual when was reinstated 10.3(a). wage injury employed.” Rule Here has each time that his Merit “suffered using pay no the incorrect there is claim that Strozewski ever moved has been calculated Thus, higher step.” rate rate. cause action accrued from a to a lower tendering incorrect “upon His claim is that he did advance to each higher wages.” Assuming that is correct conclu- early rate as as he should have. next law, Resources, petition sion of alleges Dept. also St. Peters v. Nat. Step he has been at Five since (Mo.App.1990), December the Western wages noted, 1985. So his and vacation District were calcu- reference to using step lated years the correct for over six that: appellant sought before declaratory judg- quite clearly The statute allows for re- ment in 1992. It follows that he has suffered view in where a cases decision has been injury clearly
no since his claim is body rendered barred the statute limitations. subject to where that decision is not ad- judgment provision trial ministrative review and no other court is affirmed. words, inquiry exists. other COVINGTON, C.J., and BENTON and *4 City the Peters of St. must exhaust ROBERTSON, JJ., concur. rights to administrative review in order to invoke this section. PRICE, J., in separate concurs result in short, statutory the restriction within opinion filed. jurisdiction § 536.150 our as to to review LIMBAUGH, JJ., THOMAS and concur in only subject “a which decision is not to ad- opinion PRICE, of J. in ministrative can review” uncontested cases PRICE, ignored no more than language the Judge, concurring in result. § requiring aggrieved party 536.100 that the I by concur with result the reached the has “exhausted all administrative remedies” majority, disagree but with I reasoning. the prior to in review contested cases. petitioner required believe that the to exhaust remedy provided majority attempts his administrative to lan- avoid the 536.150(1) city guage solely § the merit focusing rules. 536.150(3). § pro- That section does indeed Dist., Citing Kish v. Chilhowee R-IV Sch. “Nothing vide that in this section shall be 649, (Mo.App.1991), 814 S.W.2d 653 the ma jurisdiction construed ... to limit the jority requirement finds no exhaustion in scope any remedy court or the available § provides 536.150 that for review of sup- the (Emphasis absence of this section.” non-eontested I hearings. believe Kish and plied.) They ignore the language, underlined majority give the decision fail effect to the however. oth- Strozewski has no contract or 536.150(1), plain language §of which allows city. against er claim Amaan v. for only decision “a which is not Eureka, (Mo.1981). 615 S.W.2d 415 His subject to administrative review.” Two oth only city’s from arises administra- appeals’ er court of decisions have held that regulations employ- tive rules and language requires this exhaustion. only right ment. pursue v. Forget County, State ex rel. Franklin 536.150, § these claims out of “in arises (Mo.App.1991), 809 S.W.2d the East- majority’s the absence” of it. The overread- District ern noted: 536.150(3) ing rendering §of results in Appellants § also claim RSMo 536.- 536.150(1) § requirement of “a decision 150 of the Administrative Procedure Act subject which is not administrative review” provides jurisdiction in this case. Even nullity. permissible It is for us to appellants had presented this issue to the by interpretation express statutory delete below, they not, trial court did language. § would help RSMo them. 536.150 language § Even if the literal 536.150 only expressly applies when the decision of exhaustion, judicial require did not policy body is “not administrative by Neely would. As noted and Shinn previously review.” As Prac., Mo. Pro- Administrative Practice and stated, provides § 64.870 an ade- cedure, p. 333: quate procedure for See Ameri- Clinton, Hog Company County general may can As a matter one not turn (Mo.App., judiciary relief in K.C.D. the face of threat- 1973). ened, potential ongoing even adminis- Duncan, Coulson, G. Robert if Edward A. are administrative trative action there City, appellant. have not been Kansas remedies available which of exhaustion This doctrine exhausted. Gen., Atty. Asst. Kansas Philip Koppe, M. is essence administrative remedies City, respondent. object whose rule of administration preservation of institutional efficien- is cy agencies relationships in the between P.J., BERREY, Before designed preclude It is and courts. SMART, JJ. BRECKENRIDGE ju- unnecessary potentially
premature and in the administrative dicial intervention ORDER it to process, will not leave courts objective parties to assure that PER CURIAM. realized. exceptions may many there While conviction of class C Appeal from the application requirement of exhaustion involuntary manslaughter, felony 565.- remedies, none has been of administrative 024.1(2), felony C class tradi- that would override these shown here 565.060.1(4), degree, § in the second assault *5 tionally respected principles. felony leaving class D and the majority’s holding I fear that the threatens accident, § of an the scene system judicial our great harm to 1986. longer No will of administrative actions. pursuant Judgment to Rule 30.- complaints that do rise to the level of a affirmed 25(b). informally within contested case resolved Instead, agencies. our courts
administrative litigation
will be flood of over significant enough
matters deemed in an require
law to contested case setting. rest of While community
legal attempts to our streamline
legal process prob- into more one of efficient methods,
lem-solving through less formal wrong way. squarely
decision cuts I believe StrozewsM’s should CASADY, Respondent, Selma J. dismissed because he failed exhaust administrative remedies. v.
The BOARD OF OF GOVERNORS MISSOURI STATE NORTHEAST UNIVERSITY, Appellant. Missouri, Respondent, STATE No. WD 47452. Appeals, Missouri Court Appellant. ROWELL, D.
Charles District. Western No. WD 47393. April 1994. Appeals, Court of Missouri District. Western Rehearing Transfer to Motion for and/or 1994. May 1994. Supreme Denied Court Rehearing Transfer Motion for and/or May 31,
Supreme Court Denied