See also §14-40 et. seq
Where an agency chooses to use proficiency standards instead of seniority to determine which employees will be subject to a layoff, as permitted in the Career Service Rules, those proficiency standards must be reasonable and fair. In re Owens-Manis and Pettway, 73-09 A. and 75-09 a., 4-5 (10/21/2010).
Hearing Officer’s decision, reversing the Agency’s layoff of Appellant, reinstated her to the position created in a different Agency where her job duties were transferred and not to her former position. In re Hamilton, 100-09, 107-09, 1-2 (CSB Order 11/10/2010).
An employee challenging a layoff must overcome the “presumption of regularity afforded an agency in fulfilling its statutory mandate” with a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law. In re Blehm, 47-10, 6 (10/28/2010), citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 US at 44, fn.9; In re Vasquez and Lewis, CSA 08-09, 4 (5/20/09); Brennan v. Department of Local Affairs, 786 P.2d 426 (Colo.App. 1989); Velasquez v. Dept of Higher Education, 93 P.3d 540 (Colo. App. 2003).
A layoff is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law if it 1) fails to use reasonable diligence to procure authorized evidence; 2) fails to give fair consideration to that evidence; or 3) exercises its discretion in an unreasonable manner. In re Blehm, 47-10, 6 (10/28/2010), citing Maggard v. Department of Human Services, 226 P.3d 1209 (Colo.App. 2009).
Appellant’s layoff was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law where her supervisors established that they did not base the layoff on factors personal to the appellant, but rather they based the layoff recommendation on an analysis of the duties of the position, including that the time required to complete appellants assigned duties constituted 15% of a full-time position and that her duties could be consolidated into the work performed by employees now on staff, resulting in the savings of a full-time salary with no loss of efficiency, and appellant failed to show that this analysis of her duties was colored in any respect by subjectivity, dislike, or personal bias. In re Blehm, 47-10, 7 (10/28/2010).
Appellant failed to establish her layoff was arbitrary and capricious where she asserted the reallocation of her duties resulted in directors performing some of her work at a higher hourly rate, however, she provided no evidence the directors given her duties were unable to complete their own duties, nor did she present evidence comparing either the amount of time consumed by the duties or the personnel costs to cover those duties, before and after they layoff. In re Blehm, 47-10, 7-8 (10/28/2010).
Agency’s decision to layoff appellant and reassign some of her duties was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law, where the methodology employed by the agency in making the layoff decision was based on factors a reasonable administrator would use in arriving at a business decision: a detailed analysis of the tasks performed, the time needed to complete them, and whether they could be done in a more cost-effective manner by reassignment. In re Blehm, 47-10, 7 (10/28/2010).
The Career Service layoff rules do not require an agency to transfer duties from other employees in order to avoid layoffs. In re Blehm, 47-10, 8 (10/28/2010).
The subjects of job abolishment, demotional appointments and lay-off are properly before the hearings officer pursuant to the CSR §§ 4 and 14. In re Hurdelbrink, CSA 109-04, 119-04, 4 (1/5/05).