AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The appellant, while serving as the Deputy Fire Chief for the City of Española, was served with a “Notice of Contemplated Disciplinary Action” due to allegations of sexually harassing a subordinate. He contested the allegations in a pre-termination informal meeting but was subsequently terminated. The appellant appealed his termination to the City’s grievance board, which found the allegations substantiated but not in violation of the City’s sexual harassment policy. However, the hearing officer did not direct reinstatement or back pay for the appellant. Both parties appealed to the district court, which sided with the City, reversing the hearing officer’s decision (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Rio Arriba County: Granted the City’s cross-appeal, denied the appellant’s appeal, and reversed the hearing officer’s decision that a violation of the City’s sexual harassment policy had not occurred.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that his due process rights were violated due to the lack of promulgated rules of procedure for the post-termination hearing and the inability to cross-examine accusers. Contended that the legal residuum rule was violated, the district court’s determination of sufficient grounds for termination was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with law, and claimed entitlement to reinstatement and back pay (paras 2-3).
• Appellee (City of Española): Responded to the appellant's arguments by addressing four distinct arguments they believed the appellant was advancing, due to the appellant's failure to clearly articulate specific arguments in his brief (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's procedural due process rights were violated due to the lack of promulgated rules of procedure for the post-termination hearing and the inability to cross-examine accusers.
• Whether the legal residuum rule was violated.
• Whether the district court’s determination that the City had sufficient grounds for the appellant’s termination is supported by substantial evidence, is not arbitrary and capricious, and is in accordance with law.
• Whether the appellant was entitled to reinstatement and back pay in light of the arguments presented (paras 3-4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, supporting the City’s cross-appeal and denying the appellant’s appeal (para 24).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Gerald E. Baca, Jennifer L. Attrep, and J. Miles Hanisee, found that the appellant's procedural due process rights were not violated as the parties agreed on the property right to employment but disputed the due process in the post-termination hearing. The court determined that due process claims were not preserved and declined to address the issue of promulgated rules of procedure. It also found that the appellant had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses but did not avail himself of this opportunity. The court rejected the appellant's arguments concerning the legal residuum rule due to lack of preservation for review. On the substantial evidence issue, the court found that the district court’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court concluded that the appellant's comments constituted sexual harassment under the City’s policy and that the hearing officer’s decision was contrary to law, thus affirming the district court’s decision (paras 4-23).