Skip navigation

RULE 21: APPEALS TO THE CAREER SERVICE BOARD

IN GENERAL 

As long as decision-maker substantially complies with DSD disciplinary guidelines, the CSB will not disturb any imposed discipline. In re Sparer, CSB 71A-18, 4 (7/18/19).

Hearing officer affirmance of 10-day suspension for deputy’s failure to aid fellow deputies did not set bad precedent of promoting inconsistent instruction and expectations on assistance in use of force situations, rather decision merely reinforced DSD rule requiring deputies to assist other deputies in those situations. In re Sparer, CSB 71A-18, 6 (7/18/19).

The seriousness of misconduct and degree of discipline are not fact findings to which the CSB is bound, but are ultimate findings over which the CSB may exercise discretion. In re Mancuso, CSB 76-17, 2-3 (9/6/18).

Hearing officer erred in ultimate finding that appellant accepted responsibility for his misconduct where appellant persisted in claiming his threat to punch a coworker was funny, and that he is a known jokester, but his only expressed recognition of misconduct was his threat to retaliate against anyone who reported his threatened punch. In re Mancuso, CSB 76-17, 4 (9/6/18).

Hearing officer set bad precedent in failing to uphold agency’s dismissal of appellant who threatened violence and retaliation where the City has emphasized eradicating workplace violence. In re Mancuso, CSB 76-17, 5 (9/6/18).

Hearing officer erred in holding dismissal for threats of violence and retaliation was not within the range of alternatives available to a reasonable and prudent administrator, because such holding diminishes the seriousness of violations under EO 112. In re Mancuso, CSA 76-17, 5 (9/6/18).

Bad precedent was not set by appellant’s demotion where she claimed she was simply helping an inmate through the book-in process, during which she violated rules against preferential treatment. In re Koonce, CSB 34-17, 6 (6/21/18).

Different standards of review apply to the agency decision-maker, the hearing officer and the CSB. The decision maker is tasked with determining whether a deputy sheriff has violated DCSR or DSD rules by a preponderance of the evidence. The hearing officer reviews the decision-maker’s penalty decision with substantial deference, particularly with respect to a deputy sheriff. The CSB may reverse the hearing officer for insufficiency of evidence only for a factual finding that has no support in the record; however, the CSB reviews conclusions of law and mixed questions of fact and law de novoIn re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 4 (11/15/17).

Ten-day suspension for pulling an inmate’s hair did not set improper precedent in that it was a reasoned decision based on the unique facts of the case and an individualized application of the principles embodied in the agency’s disciplinary matrix. In re Romero, CSB 28-16, 2-3 (6/15/17).

Competency of counsel is not grounds for review on petition for review of hearing officer’s decision. In re Lawrence, CSB 41-16, 2 (3/2/17).

The CSB may reverse a hearing officer’s decision for insufficient evidence only if the findings are clearly erroneous. In re Lovingier, CSB 48-13, 2 (11/7/14).

A factual finding is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole, meaning the factual finding has no support in the record. In re Lovinginer, CSB 48-13, 2 (11/7/14), citing In re the Estate of Perry, 33 P.3d 1235, 1237 (Colo.App. 2001); Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835, 841 (Colo.App. 2007). 

A party waives an argument raised on petition for review where his brief fails to include the grounds to support it. In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, 2 (7/28/14), citing U.S. v. Hardman, 297 F.3d 1116, 1131 (10th Cir. 2002). 

A decision that contains findings and conclusions regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary penalty imposed is sufficient under the CSRs. In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, 7 (7/28/14).

There is no finding for the CSB to review where the hearing officer did not sustain a violation of a departmental regulation included in the employee’s petition for review. In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, 6 (7/28/14).

Appellant failed to establish error in hearing officer’s finding of dishonesty where the video relied upon by hearing officer constitutes substantial evidence to support the finding that appellant lied about the incident depicted in the video. In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, 2 (7/28/14).

Arguments raised in a perfunctory manner are waived. In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, 2 (7/28/14), citing U. S. v. Hardman, 297 F. 3d 1116, 1131 (10th Cir. 2002). 

An evidentiary error by a hearing officer is harmless where the record contains ample support for the hearing officer’s determination. In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, 5 (7/28/14).  

Failure to tie facts to grounds cited under this rule or to make appropriate citations to the record may be fatal to a petition for review. In re Serna, CSB 39-12, 2 (2/21/14).

Agency rule violations generally do not constitute grounds for overturning a hearing officer's decision. In re Redacted, CSB 67-11, 2 (4/4/13). 

Appellant’s due process rights were not violated by decision-maker's reliance on matters not in disciplinary letters where appellant received a de novo hearing and the hearing officer exercised independent judgment on the discipline based only on evidence of allegations contained in the discharge letter. In re Redacted, CSB 67-11, 4 (4/4/13). 

CSB will overturn a hearing officer's factual findings for insufficiency of evidence only where factual findings are clearly erroneous. In re Redacted, CSB 67-11, 5 (4/4/13). 

A factual finding is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole; that is, where the factual finding has no support in the record. In re Redacted, CSB 67-11, 5 (4/4/13), citing In re Murphy, CSB 09-11 (7/3/12).   

A petition for review which fails to invoke any of the five grounds for review under CSR 19-61 is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. In re Redacted, CSB 57-11, 2 (12/20/12).

Hearing officer's determinations of credibility based on record evidence will not be re-weighed on petition for review. In re Redacted, CSB 57-11, 2 (12/20/12).

The CSB will interpret a petition filed by a pro se petitioner liberally in determining the existence of jurisdiction. In re Redacted, CSB 57-11, 2 (12/20/12), citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

A hearing officer’s determination of credibility that is based on evidence in the record is not clearly erroneous, and therefore CSB will not disturb it on review. In re Redacted, CSB 57-11, 2 (12/20/12).

Those claims in a petition for review which petitioner does not subsequently brief are deemed abandoned. In re Roybal, CSB 60-11, 2 (8/2/12).

Where petitioner filed a timely petition for review claiming erroneous rules interpretation and policy-setting precedent, but failed to mention them in her brief, she abandoned those two grounds. In re Roybal, CSB 60-11, 2 (8/2/12).

Determining the credibility of witnesses is uniquely within the province of the hearing officer. In re Roybal, CSB 60-11, 2 (8/2/12), citing In re Rogers, CSB 25-08, 2 (7/16/09).

Since credibility is uniquely within the province of the hearing officer, who found opposing witness more credible than the appellant, then appellant’s claim, that she was the more credible witness, provides no basis to reverse the hearing officerIn re Roybal, CSB 60-11, 2 (8/2/12).

A claim which was not stated in the Petition for Review is not properly before the CSB. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 5-6 (4/14/12). 

A claim which does not materially impact the outcome or conduct of the hearing does not provide any basis to disturb the ruling of the hearing officer. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 5 (4/14/12). 

Petitioner’s claim that he did not timely receive his IAB file does not affect hearing officer’s decision where the petitioner did not argue any material prejudice from his late reception of the file and the record contained sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s findings. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 5 (4/14/12). 

Petitioner’s allegations did not constitute a claim under CSR 21-21 A where he asserted the nonappearance of a witness at hearing, but he failed to subpoena the witness or request an extension to do so. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 4 (4/14/12) (decided under former 19-61 A). 

Petitioner failed to state a claim under CSR 19-61 B, erroneous rules interpretation, where he failed to identify a violation or erroneous interpretation of any rule. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 6 (4/14/12).

Constitutional requirements of criminal prosecutions have no applicability Career Service hearings. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 4 (4/14/12).

Petitioner waived her right to appeal the hearing officer's dismissal of her sexual harassment claim at the close of the hearing by not arguing in her petition for preview that the dismissal was error. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 5 (3/17/11).

Unlike a court of law, the CSB has only limited appellate jurisdiction, defined by CSR 21. In re Schultz, CSB 32-09 & 41-09, 2 (2/18/10).

On petition for review, appellant’s unsupported claims that he was fired for alcoholism, witnesses were bribed and his attorney was guilty of coercion and false representation did not fall within the jurisdiction of the CSB. In re Schultz, CSB 32-09 & 41-09, 2 (2/18/10).

It is not the CSB’s responsibility to sift through the record looking for evidence which may support or refute an argument made on appeal. In re Paz, CSB 07-09, 1 (1/21/10).

The CSB must consider relevant case law cited by a party which was decided after the career service hearing. In re Luna, CSB 42-07, 2 (1/30/09).

When appellate issues included the application of the Lautenberg Amendment to continued employment with the city, there must be sufficient factual findings to support the CSB’s legal conclusions about the amendment’s applicability. In re Luna, CSB 42-07, 4 (1/30/09), citing Woods v. City of Denver, 122 P. 3d 1050, 1055 (Colo.App. 2005).

Appellant’s own medical records which were available to her ten months before hearing are not newly-discovered evidence. In re Lawrence, CSB 41-16, 2 (3/2/17).

Appellant’s attorney’s decision not to enter available evidence into the record does not create new evidence on petition for review. In re Lawrence, CSB 41-16, 2 (3/2/17).

Admission of inmate witness statements was at most harmless error because the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in administrative hearings. In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, 4-5 (7/28/14).

Even if inmate witness statements were admitted in error, it was harmless because the finding was also supported by the testimony of other witnesses. In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, 5 (7/28/14).  

Allegation of new evidence is deemed abandoned where appellant fails to include an affidavit stating the nature of the new evidence and the reasons for its unavailability at hearing. In re Serna, CSB 39-12, 2 (2/21/14).

Petitioner’s allegations did not constitute a claim under CSR 19-61 A where he asserted the nonappearance of witnesses at hearing, but he failed to subpoena them or request an extension to do so. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 4 (4/14/12).

Because July medical appointment was clearly available when hearing officer subsequently issued dismissal decision in December, appellant failed to establish CSB jurisdiction based on new and material evidence not available when the appeal was before the hearing officer. In re Augustine, CSB 24-09 (4/28/10). 

Agency’s disagreement with hearing officer’s decision is insufficient substitute for a reference to a specific rule or regulation allegedly misinterpreted, accompanied by an explanation why the hearing officer’s interpretation of that rule was incorrect. In re Jackson, CSB 42-16, 2 (6/15/17).

Agency waived its claim of erroneous rules interpretation where it failed to posit an argument in its brief supporting the claim. In re Jackson, CSB 42-16, 2 (6/15/17). 

It is not the CSB policy to require an employee to prove the equivalent of a federal case in order to establish retaliation, harassment or discrimination under the CSRs. In re Koonce, CSB 36-13, 5 (10/16/14).

Hearing officer’s finding appellant’s conduct did not amount to sexual harassment in this specific instance did not diminish agency’s zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment. In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, 5 (4/4/13).

Hearing officer did not misinterpret 16-60 A by finding that supervisor neglected her duty to issue timely PEPRs that provided feedback to employees after being put on notice that she was expected to issue timely and meaningful PEPRs, and finding was conclusively demonstrated by the record. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 2 (12/20/12). 

Hearing officer did not misinterpret 16-60 J by finding that supervisor disobeyed an order to handle staff communications with sensitivity and respect based on evidence of her angry confrontation with one employee and assignment of extra work to other employees just to be, in her words, "an asshole." In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 2-3 (12/20/12).

Petitioner’s claim that hearing officer’s findings were clearly erroneous and “set terrible precedent,” is insufficient basis for argument on petition for review where agency’s brief failed to make any citation to the record. In re Carothers, CSB 13-11, 2 (7/16/12).

Petitioner failed to state a claim under this rule where he failed to identify a violation or erroneous interpretation of any rule. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 6 (4/14/12).

Jurisdiction under this Rule requires more than a conclusory statement that some unidentified rule was interpreted incorrectly. In re Napoli, CSB 74-10, 3 (8/18/11).   

Argument that hearing office erroneously interpreted the CSRs by failing to consider a collective bargaining agreement fails, as discipline of career service employees is controlled by the CSRs, not a CBA, and appellant failed to cite any CSR as being erroneously interpreted. In re Paz, CSB 07-09, 2 (1/21/10), citing In re Espinoza, CSB 30-05 (8/23/06).

Agency did not establish that hearing officer erroneously interpreted rule by failing to address performance standard of "no preventable accidents" where factual finding that accident was not preventable was not challenged. In re Sandrowski, CSB 58-07, 2 (8/21/08).

Hearing officer’s finding that agency’s witness was more credible that appellant’s witnesses does not transmogrify his factual findings into insufficient evidence to support the decision under § 19-61 D. In re Ray, CSB 57-06, 3 (5/20/08).

It is within the hearing officer’s province to assess the credibility of witnesses. In re Ray, CSB 57-06, 3 (5/20/08).

Under this rule, the CSB may reverse a hearing officer’s decision that sets precedent involving policy considerations that may have effect beyond the instant appeal. In re Santistevan, CSB 75-16, 2 (11/16/17). 

CSB reversal to two-level demotion, which hearing officer had found unwarranted, required to rectify policy-setting precedent where recreation center supervisor forced a subordinate to improperly issue a free pass, and improperly entered other employees’ time, which actions called into question appellant’s fitness to supervise, were a serious abuse of a supervisory position, and placed City in potential legal jeopardy, which required demotion to non-supervisory position. In re Santistevan, CSB 75-16, 2-3 (11/16/17).

Agency waived its claim of improper policy-setting precedent where it failed to posit an argument in its brief supporting the claim. In re Jackson, CSB 42-16, 2 (6/15/17).

Appellant’s assertion that agency’s actions would “have a negative effect on promotions within DIA” is too speculative to make a claim under CSR 21-21 C. In re Lawrence, CSB 41-16, 2 (3/2/17).

Hearing officer’s finding that appellant’s conduct did not amount to sexual harassment was supported by the record, and therefore did not set bad policy precedent under this rule. In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, 4-5 (4/4/13). 

Record did not support petitioner's allegation that hearing officer engaged in misconduct by acting as prosecutor in finding a violation of 16-28 F where the finding was based on evidence that appellant violated orders on at least two occasions. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 7 (12/20/12).

Petitioner’s claim that hearing officer’s findings were clearly erroneous and “set terrible precedent,” is insufficient basis for argument on petition for review where agency’s brief failed to make any citation to the record. In re Carothers, CSB 13-11, 2 (7/16/12).

Criminal procedure rules have no applicability Career Service hearings. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 4 (4/14/12).

There was no policy-setting precedent to appellant’s allegation that the hearing officer’s decision would permit agencies to terminate employees without notice of their violations where he received two warnings regarding his misconduct. In re Napoli, CSB 74-10, 3 (8/18/11).

Fact that decision may have policy-setting considerations, in that agency did not comply with Rule 16, does not require reversal where appellant was given a full and fair opportunity to present her harassment and retaliation claims at hearing. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 6 (3/17/11).  

Argument that dismissal of appeal, based on its timeliness, presents an undesirable precedent does not fall within any of the grounds for CSB review, and raises no policy considerations that may have effect beyond the appeal at hand. In re Augustine, CSB 24-09, 2 (4/28/10).

Argument that discipline was inconsistent with other discipline throughout the city, creating a policy-setting precedent, fails because the reasonableness of discipline under the CSRs is determined by the factual circumstances presented in each case, not upon comparisons with other city employees. In re Paz, CSB 07-09, 2 (1/21/10), comparing Denver City Charter 9.4.15F.  

Agency argument that agency’s facts and conclusions were correct does not present grounds for overturning the hearing officer’s decision as unsupported by the evidence. In re Jackson, CSB 42-16, 3 (6/15/17), citing In re St. Germain, CSB 24-12 (9/3/15).  

CSB concludes from its review of the record that all the factual findings made by the hearing officer are supported by the record and are, therefore, not clearly erroneous.  In re Jackson, CSB 42-16, 3 (6/15/17).

Hearing officer’s consideration of documents not formally admitted into evidence does not warrant reversal for insufficient evidence, where appellant failed to prove retaliation based on properly admitted evidence. In re Koonce, CSB 36-13, 2 (10/16/14). 

Hearing officer's consideration of documents not formally admitted into evidence does not warrant reversal where the record is replete with admissible evidence supporting the factual findings and conclusions. In re Koonce, CSB 36-13, 2 (10/16/14).

Consideration of documents not formally admitted into evidence constitutes harmless error where the record is replete with admitted evidence supporting the hearing officer's factual findings and conclusions. In re Koonce, CSB 36-13, 2 (10/16/14).

The preponderance of evidence standard is not applicable to the CSB's review of a decision by a hearing officer. In re Koonce, CSB 36-13, 2 (10/16/14).

CSB does not re-weigh the evidence or make a de novo determination concerning facts found by the hearing officer, but overturns factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous. In re Koonce, CSB 36-13, 2-3 (10/16/14).

The CSB does not review credibility findings made by the hearing officer. In re Koonce, CSB 36-13, 3 (10/16/14).

Hearing officer's findings and conclusions rejecting retaliation claim were supported by record evidence, consistent with sound policy, and not the product of misinterpretation of our rules. In re Koonce, CSB 36-13, 4 (10/16/14).

Decision upholding demotion for not completing assigned tasks was not clearly erroneous where tasks and time frame for completion were found reasonable, and there was more than sufficient evidence in the record to support the demotion. In re Serna, CSB 39-12, 3 (2/21/14).

Allegation of new evidence is deemed abandoned where appellant fails to include an affidavit stating the nature of the new evidence and the reasons for its unavailability at hearing. In re Serna, CSB 39-12, 2 (2/21/14).  

In order to overturn a hearing officer's finding for insufficient evidence, CSB must determine that the finding is clearly erroneous. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 3 (12/20/12). 

A finding is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole; that is, where the factual finding has no support in the record. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 3 (12/20/12), citing In re Murphy, CSB 09-11 (7/3/12).

Considerable and undisputed evidence supported hearing officer's finding that supervisor did not meet her performance standard to submit PEPRs in a timely and meaningful fashion. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 3 (12/20/12). 

CSB will not overturn finding of failure to maintain satisfactory work relationships for a litany of noxious conduct creating a toxic work environment, where the conduct was undisputed and supported by the record. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 4 (12/20/12).

A hearing officer decision that is based on evidence in the record is not clearly erroneous, and therefore will not be disturbed on review by CSB. In re Redacted, CSB 57-11, 2 (12/20/12).

Hearing officer’s finding that petitioner was dishonest during internal affairs investigation was not clearly erroneous where it was based on determination of credibility supported by record evidence. In re Redacted, CSB 57-11 (12/20/12).

The question to resolve under CSR 21-21 D is not whether there are facts in the record which, had the hearing officer relied on them, support petitioner, but whether the hearing officer’s findings were “clearly erroneous.” In re Roybal, CSB 60-11, 2 (8/2/12).

The issue under CSR 21-21 D is not whether appellant’s version of the facts proves the agency failed to establish any rules violations, but whether the hearing officer’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous,” meaning unsupported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. In re Roybal, CSB 60-11, 2 (8/2/12), citing In re Murphy, CSB 09-11 (7/3/12).  

A factual finding is clearly erroneous when it has no support in the record. In re Roybal, CSB 60-11, 2 (8/2/12), citing In re Murphy, CSB 09-11 (7/3/12).  

Hearing officers are charged with judging the credibility of witnesses and deciding the weight of testimony and other evidence. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 3 (4/14/12).

Agency was not required to produce potential witnesses on behalf of appellant where appellant could have, but failed, to subpoena them. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 4 (4/14/12).

Where video evidence was clear and unambiguous, what non-appearing witnesses may have seen is insufficient basis to reverse hearing officer’s conclusions. In re Webster, CSB 03-11, 4 (4/14/12).

Under 21-21 D, the CSB may reverse the hearing officer's decision only if it is not supported by the evidence in the record and is clearly erroneous. In re Napoli, CSB 74-10, 3 (8/18/11).

It is within the hearing officer's province to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence presented in reaching a decision. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 5 (3/17/11).

Appellant’s disagreement with the hearing officer's findings does not make them clearly erroneous when they are supported by the evidence in the record. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 5 (3/17/11).

It is within the hearing officer's province to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence presented in reaching a decision. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 5 (3/17/11).

A petition raising insufficiency of the evidence under § 19-61 D must be supported by specific citations to the record. In re Paz, CSB 07-09, 1 (1/21/10).

A petitioner who merely ordered a hearing transcript and designated exhibits on appeal did not meet his burden to demonstrate the hearing officer’s findings were unsupported by the record or were clearly erroneous. In re Paz, CSB 07-09, 1 (1/21/10).

The CSB may reverse the hearing officer’s decision on this ground only if it is not supported by the evidence in the record and is clearly erroneous. In re Compos, Herrera, Sandler & Sena, CSB 56-08, 57-08, 58-08 & 59-08, 2 (6/18/09).

Where the record reflects factual evidence supporting the hearing officer’s decision, it is not clearly erroneous. In re Compos, Herrera, Sandler & Sena, CSB 56-08, 57-08, 58-08 & 59-08, 2 (6/18/09).

It is the responsibility of the hearing officer to judge credibility and weigh conflicting evidence. In re Compos, Herrera, Sandler & Sena, CSB 56-08, 57-08, 58-08 & 59-08, 2 (6/18/09).

When the evidence is conflicting, the CSB may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the hearing officer simply because there may be credible evidence supporting a different result. In re Compos, Herrera, Sandler & Sena, CSB 56-08, 57-08, 58-08 & 59-08, 2 (6/18/09).

CSB may reverse hearing officer’s finding of fact only if it is not supported by the evidence in the record and is clearly erroneous. In re Luna, CSB 42-07, 5 (1/30/09).

Hearing officer’s finding that carrying a firearm is an essential duty of a deputy sheriff was not clearly erroneous, where finding was supported by 1) testimony of the Director of Corrections, 2) written agency policy requiring all deputy sheriffs to carry firearms, and 3) a showing of a rational basis for the requirement. In re Luna, CSB 42-07, 5 (1/30/09).

Hearing officer’s factual finding that bicyclist was at fault in accident with appellant's truck supported reversal of discipline based on accident where agency did not challenge sufficiency of the evidence. In re Sandrowski, CSB 58-07, 2 (8/21/08).

Agency's disagreement with hearing officer's factual findings was waived by its failure to challenge sufficiency of the evidence. In re Sandrowski, CSB 58-07, 2 (8/21/08).

Agency did not establish that appellant failed to exercise ordinary care or acted heedless or unmindful of an important work duty in accident between bicyclist and appellant's city truck where hearing officer found that the precautions suggested by agency would not have prevented the accident. In re Sandrowski, CSB 58-07, 2 (8/21/08).

A petition for review which fails to invoke any of the five grounds for review under CSR 21-21 is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. In re Redacted, CSB 57-11 (12/20/12).

CSRs provide for interlocutory appeal to the CSB when the hearing officer does not have jurisdiction over the appeal. In re Cullen, CSB 127-08 (2/5/09).  

Where appellant challenges termination of employment, hearing officer has jurisdiction to hear appeal pursuant to § 19-10 A.1.a. In re Cullen, CSB 127-08 (2/5/09).   

Claim that hearing officer abused her discretion in ruling on the issuance of subpoenas prior to the hearing is not grounds for interlocutory appeal. In re Cullen, CSB 127-08 (2/5/09).   

The hearing officer has the right to determine, in the first instance, whether he has jurisdiction to hear an appeal. In re Brooks, CSB 91-07, 2 (4/9/08). 

When jurisdiction over an appeal depends on the resolution of factual issues, the hearing officer must determine those facts before the CSB will intervene on an interlocutory appeal. In re Brooks, CSB 91-07, 2 (4/9/08).

This rule requires a petition for review specifically to designate the grounds for review under CSR 21-21. In re Redacted, CSB 57-11 (12/20/12).

Petitioner’s failure to petition hearing officer’s dismissal of her sexual harassment claim at the close of hearing waived her right to appeal that dismissal. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 5 (3/17/11).

Dispute resolution sources, such as participation in “Facilitated Conversations” or seeking Human Resources’ assistance, does not delay the deadline for filing a petition for review with the CSB. In re Noel, CSA 88-10, 1-2 (Order 12/29/10).

An appeal that does not meet jurisdictional filing requirements must be dismissed. In re Cullen, CSB 127-08, 20 (6/1/09).

CSR 21-23 does not contain an explicit close of business deadline for the last day of an appeal period. In re Cullen, CSB 127-08 (6/1/09). 

CSR 21-23 requires filing with the CSB at the personnel director’s office. In re Cullen, CSB 127-08 (6/1/09). 

Since § 21-23 requires petition for review to be filed at the personnel director’s office within fifteen calendar days, and appellant, represented by counsel, filed only at the hearing office, petition was not timely and CSB was without jurisdiction to consider the petition. In re Cullen, CSB 127-08 (6/1/09).

Agency’s request for stay of appeal to engage in settlement negotiations was untimely where agency failed to file request for transcript or notice that no transcript was requested within deadline set by § 19-64. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSB 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 1 (8/12/08). 

Agency’s request for stay of appeal to engage in settlement negotiations was not supported by good cause where it was untimely, agency failed to consult with appellants about their position on the motion, and appellants opposed it. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSB 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 1-2 (8/12/08).

CSB’s denial of stay of decision reversing terminations requires agency to reinstate appellants to their former classifications and pay grades. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSB 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 2 (8/12/08).

Agency’s elimination of appellants’ positions following their termination does not relieve it of its obligation to reinstate appellants based on reversal of their terminations. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSB 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 2 (8/12/08).

Agency’s motion for stay of appeal was denied as untimely where agency failed to request a transcript or file notice that no transcript was requested within twenty days after filing petition for review. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSB 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 1 (8/12/08). 

Where petitioner claimed erroneous rules interpretation and policy-setting precedent, but failed to mention them in her brief, she abandoned those two grounds. In re Roybal, CSB 60-11 (8/2/12).

Those claims in a petition for review which are not subsequently briefed are deemed abandoned. In re Roybal, CSB 60-11, 2 (8/2/12).

Petitioner’s brief may be stricken when its assertions fail to cite any part of the record. In re Carothers, CSB 13-11, 2 (7/16/12).

Petitioner’s claim that hearing officer’s findings were clearly erroneous and “set terrible precedent,” is insufficient basis for petition for review under CSR 19-61 B or C, where agency’s brief failed to make any citation to the record. In re Carothers, CSB 13-11, 2 (7/16/12).

Petition for review is denied for failure to file a brief in support of petition. In re Crenshaw, CSB 18-06 (9/7/06).