Where appellant had legal counsel when she signed settlement agreement, her subsequent “misgivings” about it were insufficient basis to reinstate appeal. In re Compton, CSA 71-10, 1 (Order 3/31/11).
No basis to reinstate Career Service appeal where settlement agreement reserved the right to revoke agreement only as it pertained to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which is outside the jurisdiction of this venue. In re Compton, CSA 71-10, 1-2 (Order 3/31/11).
Settlement agreement reducing appellant’s 60-day suspension to 45 days contemplated that agency would reimburse her the amount equivalent to 15 days of pay, calculated on a daily eight-hour shift and not the 10.32 hour shift that she customarily worked, where she already served the 60-day suspension, and the agency defined her original suspension as 480-hours. In re James, CSA 33-10 (Order 1/25/11).
Dismissal based on settlement must be supported by a finding that decision to settle is a voluntary one. In re Schultz, CSA 70-08 (Order 12/22/08).
Appellant’s prompt filing of a statement that that he no longer wished to accept the agency's settlement offer precluded a finding that settlement was voluntary, and therefore dismissal pursuant to it was unavailable. In re Schultz, CSA 70-08 (Order 12/22/08).
Unilateral filing of resignation did not constitute an acceptance of a settlement offer, since offer was in dispute, and there was no evidence offer contemplated acceptance by action of resignation rather than written agreement. In re Gonzales, CSA 64-08, 2 (Order 10/10/08).
TIMELINESS [See 19-20]
Under CRE 408, an agency is precluded from introducing documents into evidence at hearing that appellant had produced during settlement negotiations. In re Murphy, CSA 09-11, 1-2 (Order 10/7/11).
Appeal of discipline and whistleblower claim filed more than 15 days [now 14] after discipline is untimely where appellant failed to allege a nominal basis for the claim under Whistleblower Ordinance. In re Moore, CSA 21-10, 2-3 (Order 5/26/10).
In an appeal containing claims with different filing deadlines including a whistleblower claim, enforcing each filing deadline separately would eviscerate the mandate of the Whistleblower Ordinance to allow 30 days to file a claim. In re Moore, CSA 21-10, 2 (Order 5/26/10).
Hearing Officer may not consider the merits of an appeal if appellant fails to file appeal within 15 days [now 14] of the notice of action being appealed. In re Sundrup, CSA 112-09 (Order 1/13/10), citing In re Delgado, CSA 182-04 (Order 3/9/05); Widener v. District Court, 615 P.2d 33 (Colo. 1980).
Appeal was untimely when appellant failed to meet 15-day [now 14] by filing his appeal sixteen days after agency mailed original notice of discipline, and he failed to provide copy of amended notice he alleged supported his claim that appeal was timely. In re Sundrup, CSA 112-09 (Order 1/13/10).
Appeal cannot be dismissed without a hearing where the parties dispute date of notice of the agency action which appellant appeals. In re Anderson, CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
Where appellant was not a party to the settlement she claims was impermissibly considered, Hearing Officer could reasonably determine admission of settlement into evidence would not frustrate purpose of CRE 408, to promote settlement by assuring parties that their settlement negotiations will not be used later against them. In re Norman-Curry, CSB 28-07A & 50-08A, 3 (9/3/09).
The purpose of CRE 408 is to promote settlement by assuring the parties that their settlement negotiations will not later be used against them. In re Norman-Curry, CSB 28-07A & 50-08A, 3 (9/3/09).
CRE 408 provides that offers of settlement are not admissible into evidence to prove liability, but it permits the admission of such evidence for other purposes. In re Norman-Curry, CSB 28-07A & 50-08A, 3 (9/3/09).
Hearing Officer properly admitted into evidence City's settlement with non-party witness in order to show harm to the City under CSR 16-60 Z [now 16-28T] (conduct prejudicial), and not to prove appellant's misconduct. In re Norman-Curry, CSB 28-07A & 50-08A, 3 (9/3/09).
Absent proof that the agency took any appealable action within 15 days [now 14] before the date of the appeal, the Career Service Hearing Office lacks jurisdiction to proceed with it. In re Schultz, CSA 21-09, 2 (Order 4/13/09).
Hearing Officer dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction where appellant filed it outside the 15-day [now 14] deadline imposed by 19-20 A.1 [now 19-31A.2.] and offered no good cause for the untimely filing, such as failure to receive notice of the action being appealed or being misinformed about deadlines by someone in a position of authority. In re Apodaca, CSA 40-06 (Order 7/28/06).
Consent to a last chance agreement to avoid a disciplinary termination is not rendered involuntary by the threat of loss of public employment. In re Williams, CSA 56-04, 5 (5/06/05).
Consent to random drug testing was not rendered involuntary by its inclusion in a last chance agreement under which a public employee keeps his job on condition of no further drug use and submission to random testing. In re Williams, CSA 56-04, 5 (5/06/05), citing Jinzo v. City of Albuquerque, 185 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 1999); Mararri v. WCI Steel, 130 F.3d 1180 (6th Cir. 1997); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973); McCall v. USPS, 839 F.2d 664 (Fed.Cir. 1988); Stewart v. USPS, 926 F.2d 1146 (Fed.Cir. 1991).