See also Rule 19
Although appellant did not use the correct procedure for raising a discrimination complaint, her grievance put the agency on notice of her complaint of sexual harassment under CSR 15. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 1 (3/17/11), citing In re Norman-Curry, CSB 28-07, 11 (11/15/07).
Pro se appellants should not be held to exacting pleading standards, and hearing officers must determine the legal causes of action, particularly in pro se appeals. In re Moore, CSA 103-09 and 21-10, 3 (Order 5/26/10), citing In re Felix, CSA 82-07 (Order 2/14/08).
Hearing office records are open to the public unless there is a legitimate reason for non-disclosure. In re Norris, CSA 86-09 (order 1/8/10); see CSR 19-54.
An order sealing the record of appeal may not be based solely upon an agreement between the parties. The hearing officer must conduct a balancing test inquiry, weighing the public’s presumed right to open access against the potential harm to the privacy of a person in interest. In re Norris, CSA 86-09 (order 1/8/10), citing Anderson v. Home Ins. Co., 924 P.2d 1123 (Colo. App. 1996); CRCP 121 § 1-5.
Motion to seal records must be denied where the motion lacks information from which privacy versus public access interests could be balanced. In re Norris, CSA 86-09 (order 1/8/10).
Appellants who appealed agency's merit increase calculation must overcome presumption of validity in administrative actions with a showing that the calculation was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law. In re Vasquez & Lewis, CSA 08-09 & 09-09, 4 (5/20/09).
There is a presumption of validity in administrative actions. In re Vasquez & Lewis, CSA 08-09 & 09-09, 4 (5/20/09), citing Velasquez v. Dept. of Higher Education, 93 P.3d 540 (Colo.App. 2003); Garner v. Colorado State Dept. of Personnel, 835 P.2d 527 (Colo.App. 1992); Renteria v. Colorado State Dept. of Personnel, 811 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1991).
Appellants stated a claim for relief under the jurisdictional rule 19-20 B. 1. A. [former CSR 19-10 A.2.b.i.] where they alleged a rule violation that negatively impacted their pay, rather than wrongful PEP results, which they could not appeal due to their high ratings. In re Vasquez & Lewis, CSA 08-09 & 09-09, 2-3 (5/20/09).
An employee may not appeal the unfavorable disposition of a grievance of a written reprimand, even though there is no alternative forum for appeal. In re Black, CSA 16-09 (Order 3/12/09).
The Career Service Hearing Office lacks jurisdiction over written reprimands. In re Black, CSA 16-09 (Order 3/12/09).
The hearing officer has no authority to consider the arguments or merits of an appeal if CSR 19, which is jurisdictional, does not identify the action as a matter that may be appealed, or if the hearing officer lacks authority to grant the remedy sought. In re Valdez, CSA 96-06, 1 (11/16/06).
A written reprimand may not be appealed. In re Valdez, CSA 96-06, 1 (11/16/06); CSR 19-20 B. 4. A. (former CSR 19-10 B 2.e.).
CSR 19 does not authorize a direct appeal of the amount of accrued vacation leave and compensatory time. In re Lovin, CSA 27-06 (5/18/06).
CSR 19 authorizes a direct appeal to challenge only the acts of an appointing authority, defined as the “municipal official designated by the annual appropriation ordinance to approve expenditures for a given appropriation.” In re Lovin, CSA 27-06, 1 (5/18/06).
A “successful” performance rating may not be appealed. In re Stenke, CSA 14-06 (3/15/06); CSR 19-20 B. 4. a.
Appellant’s challenge to legality of background check questions is not properly before hearing officer on appeal when appellant answered the questions without objection, and did not assert a discrimination claim in the appeal. In re Mitchell, CSA 05-05, 8 (6/27/05).