(See also 19-55)
Career Service Rules do not provide a hearing officer with the power to stay operation of 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 §§ 19-66 B, 19-42 C.
If Career Service Board 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 §§ 19-66 B, 19-42 C; CRCP Rule 65.
Hearing officer does not have authority to grant an award of attorney’s fees. In re Muller, CSB 48-08, 2 (Order 10/24/08).
The Career Service Rules 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 Career Service Rules 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 is without authority to grant certain relief, such as a meeting to counsel with superiors, or to request a written document. However, relief from unlawful discrimination is a remedy within the hearing officer’s jurisdiction. In re Cooley, CSA 28-06, 2 (Order 6/12/06).
Hearing officer is without authority to grant an employee transfer. In re Van Dyck, CSA 143-05, 1 (Order 2/16/06).
Hearing officer is without jurisdiction to order agency to change policies, staffing or building conditions. In re Conway, CSA 127-05, 2 (2/13/06).
Hearing officer has no jurisdiction to declare candidate selection process invalid. In re Macieyovski, CSA 81-05 (Order 8/17/05).
Where appellant failed to file timely second-step grievance, hearing officer has no jurisdiction to hear appeal under §19-10 d). In re Schultz, CSA 78-05 (Order 8/15/05).
Where §19-10 e) permits appeal only for “below expectations” PEPR, “meets expectations” PEPR is not appealable. In re Schultz, CSA 78-05 (Order 8/15/05).
Hearing officer has no jurisdiction over harassment claim when supervisor about whom complaint was made no longer works for agency. In re Ligouri, CSA 76-04 & 108-04 (Order 6/29/05).
Hearing officer has no jurisdiction over verbal reprimand. In re Ligouri, CSA 76-04 & 108-04 (Order 6/29/05).
Reduction of penalty from written reprimand to verbal reprimand deprives hearing officer of jurisdiction over appeal. In re Blea, 27-05 (Order 6/23/05).
Appellant’s failure to respond to motion to dismiss was deemed confession of motion, depriving hearing officer of jurisdiction. In re Hartzog, CSA 198-03 (Order 6/22/05).
Hearing officer is without 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 has no 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 has no jurisdiction over an employee’s work assignment. In re Yardeny, CSA 26-05 (Order 6/2/05).
Hearing officer has no jurisdiction to establish an independent committee to act on behalf of an employee. In re Yardeny, CSA 26-05 (Order 6/2/05).
Where hearing officer has no jurisdiction to grant any of the relief requested by the appellant, appeal must be dismissed. 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 (10/21/04).
Hearing office 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 (10/21/04).
Reversal of the agency action focuses only on the direct results of that action alone, 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 continuance, it must establish that appellant’s motion for continuance was made in bad faith or for the purposes of delay, or that the motion otherwise justifies 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 (10/21/04), citing Lanes v. State Auditor's Office, 797 P.2d 764, 766-67 (Colo.App. 1990) (decided under Colorado State Personnel Rules).
Back pay must be offset by interim wages earned to replace appellant’s lost income from the sheriff’s department. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 7 (10/21/04).
Back pay was not offset by an amount imputed to appellant if he had made reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages where appellant was unable to find employment in his former career of law enforcement because the agency’s publicity about the discharge damaged his reputation for integrity within the law enforcement community. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 7-8 (10/21/04).
Adverse publicity surrounding appellant’s discharge constitutes reasonable grounds for his failure to find comparable work in his field, and therefore imputed earnings will not be offset against the back pay award. In re Maes, CSA 180-03, 8 (10/21/04).
OHR Employee Relations Unit
201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept 412
Denver, CO 80202
For general employee relations questions contact:
For ADA questions contact:
To leave a message, please call: