See also 19-55
CSB does not have authority to issue remedies based on equity alone. In re Bohner, CSB 13-17A, n.7 (1/18/18).
Hearing Officer lacks authority to refer any matter to the Department of Labor on behalf of the City. In re Bohner, CSB 13-17A, n.8 (1/18/18).
Hearing Officer lacks authority to require the City to seek guidance from the Department of Labor on a classification issue. In re Bohner, CSB 13-17A, n.8 (1/18/18).
CSRs do not provide a Hearing Officer with the power to stay a disciplinary suspension before a hearing on an appeal, and such relief is inconsistent with the clear intent of the rules. In re James, CSA 33-10 (Order 5/18/10), citing CSRs 19-66B and 19-42C.
If CSB intended to authorize the Hearing Office to grant temporary relief similar to an injunction or temporary restraining order in state civil courts, it would have specifically included a rule setting forth the procedures and grounds for ruling on the issue. In re James, CSA 33-10 (Order 5/18/10), citing CSRs 19-66B [now 21-25B] and 19-42C [now 19-41D]; CRCP Rule 65.
Hearing Officer lacks authority to award attorney’s fees. In re Muller, CSB 48-08A, 2 (3/10/09).
The CSRs do not grant authority to the Hearing Officer to issue discipline against one employee based upon the request of another. In re Muller, CSA 48-08, 2 (Order 7/24/08).
A Hearing Officer is not bound by the remedies suggested by an appellant, but must determine if any remedy under the CSRs would provide relief. In re Muller, CSA 48-08, 2 (Order 7/24/08), citing In re Felix, CSA 82-07 (Order 2/14/08).
Appeal may not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where appellant seeks a remedy for which there is no jurisdiction, but another remedy for which there is jurisdiction would afford relief. In re Felix, CSA 82-07 (Order 2/14/08).
Hearing Officer is without jurisdiction to grant a change in supervisor. In re Felix, CSA 82-07 (Order 2/14/08).
Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction to grant certain relief, such as a meeting to counsel with superiors, or the provision of a written document, but has jurisdiction to grant relief from unlawful discrimination. In re Cooley, CSA 28-06, 2 (Order 6/12/06).
Hearing Officer lacks authority to grant an employee transfer. In re Van Dyck, CSA 143-05, 1 (Order 2/16/06).
Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction to order agency to change policies, staffing or building conditions. In re Conway, CSA 127-05, 2 (2/13/06).
Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction to declare candidate selection process invalid. In re Macieyovski, CSA 81-05 (Order 8/17/05).
Where appellant failed to file timely grievance, Hearing Officer has no jurisdiction to hear appeal under CSR 19-10 d [now 19-20B]. In re Schultz, CSA 78-05 (Order 8/15/05).
Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction over harassment claim against supervisor who no longer works for agency. In re Ligouri, CSA 76-04 & 108-04 (Order 6/29/05).
Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction over verbal reprimand. In re Ligouri, CSA 76-04 & 108-04 (Order 6/29/05).
Appellant’s failure to respond to motion to dismiss for over 14 months was deemed confession of motion, depriving Hearing Officer of jurisdiction. In re Hartzog, CSA 198-03 (Order 6/22/05).
Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction to grant relief sought by appellant, to 1) transfer to another agency, 2) increase PEPR rating from “meets” to “exceeds expectations”, or 3) stop the violence. In re Martinez, CSA 144-04 (Order 6/21/05).
Hearing Officer lacks authority to impose discipline demanded by one employee against another, such as removal of a supervisor. In re Yardeny, CSA 26-05 (Order 6/2/05), citing In re Crutchfield, CSA 13-01 (Order 4/3/01); In re West, CSA 327-01 (Order 12/26/01).
Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction over an employee’s work assignment. In re Yardeny, CSA 26-05, 2 (Order 6/2/05).
Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction to establish an independent committee to act on behalf of an employee. In re Yardeny, CSA 26-05 (Order 6/2/05).
Appeal must be dismissed where Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction to grant any of the relief requested by the appellant. In re Yardeny, CSA 26-05 (Order 6/2/05).
When an agency termination decision is modified to a demotion, all direct results of that agency action must likewise be modified. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 6 (6/20/08).
Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction to award damages for breach of contract, including consequential damages arising from appellant’s expectations of opportunities for secondary employment based on his status as a deputy sheriff. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 6 (6/20/08).
Reversal of the agency action focuses only on the direct results of that action, and not damages flowing from the parties’ expectations of earnings from third parties. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 6 (10/21/04).
Where agency seeks a deduction in amount of back pay owed for delay of hearing caused by appellant’s motion for continuance, it must establish that appellant made motion in bad faith or for the purposes of delay, or that the motion otherwise justified an offset from back pay. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 9-10 (Order 6/20/08).
Reinstatement, restoration of lost pay at the rate applicable to the new position, and payment of benefits lost as a result of the termination are all direct results of modification of a termination to a demotion. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 6 (6/20/08), citing Lanes v. State Auditor's Office, 797 P.2d 764, 766-67 (Colo.App. 1990) (decided under Colorado State Personnel Rules).
Appellant’s back pay must be offset by interim wages he earned to replace his lost income from the DSD. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 7 (6/20/08).
Appellant’s back pay should not be offset by imputed earnings when he made reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages but was unable to find employment in law enforcement because DSD’s publicity about the discharge damaged his reputation for integrity within the law enforcement community. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 7-8 (6/20/08).