Opinion
No. 78-476
Decided October 26, 1978.
In hearing relative to termination of city employee allegedly for budgetary reasons, career service board determined that employee failed to establish prima facie case that the budgetary justifications were subterfuges, and upon review, district court upheld that decision. Employee appealed.
Affirmed
1. CIVIL SERVICE — Employee's Position Abolished — Allegation — Budgetary Reasons — Subterfuges — Hearing — Burden on Employee — Show Bad Faith. Where, in proceeding before Career Service Board, civil service employee alleged that the budgetary justification for the abolishment of his position was in reality a subterfuge, the employee had the burden of proving that the hiring authority abused its discretion by ordering budgetary cutbacks in bad faith.
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Robert T. Kingsley, Judge.
Brenman, Sobol, Baum, Zerobnick, Epstein, Zuckerman Lutz, P.C., Leo T. Zuckerman, Daniel D. Plattner, for plaintiff-appellant.
Max P. Zall, Denver City Attorney, Stan M. Sharoff, Assistant City Attorney, for defendants-appellees.
In August of 1976, plaintiff was notified that his position as a field inspector for the City and County of Denver's Motor Vehicle Division was to be abolished for budgetary reasons. Plaintiff appealed this decision to Denver's Career Service Board, which, after a hearing, held that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case in support of his allegation that the budgetary justifications were subterfuges. Plaintiff sought review in the district court under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), and the district court upheld the Career Board's decision.
The question here, and the question which was before the district court, is whether the Career Board abused its discretion in ruling 1) that plaintiff had the burden of proving his layoff was for other than budgetary reasons, and 2) that plaintiff failed to meet this burden.
[1] Neither the ordinances creating the Career Service Board, nor the administrative rules governing it, speak to the question of who has the burden of proving that layoffs were made in bad faith. See Charter of the City and County of Denver, Chapter C, Art. V, § 5.23 et seq.; Denver Career Service Board Rule 11-30 and Rule 12-10 et seq. However, it is well established that when government agencies and officials act in the course of their statutory duties, their actions are presumed to be valid. Public Utilities Commission v. District Court, 163 Colo. 462, 431 P.2d 773 (1967); Robertson v. Board of Education, 39 Colo. App. 462, 570 P.2d 19 (1977). This presumption operates to place on the employee the burden of proving that the hiring authority abused its discretion by ordering cutbacks in bad faith. See 4 E. McQuillan, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 12.261(c) at 386 (3d ed. 1968 J. Dray Rev. Vol.).
We will not reverse the Career Board's conclusion that plaintiff failed to meet his burden. The evidence was conflicting, and the Career Board's resolution of this conflict is binding on appeal. Civil Service Commission v. Doyle, 162 Colo. 1, 424 P.2d 368 (1967).
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE RULAND and JUDGE VAN CISE concur.