Landfill Heavy Equipment Operator Terminated for Chronic Pain Sues Idaho County

Canyon County, Idaho, is situated along the picturesque Snake River, about 25 miles west of the capital city of Boise.  Migrant wagon trains passed through the area in the 19^th Century on the Oregon Trail.  The county hosts professional rodeos each summer, and those who attend can forgo a beer and toast the competitors with a glass of local wine. The county’s thriving agricultural economy includes 80% of the state's vineyards.

William Hartman was employed by the county as a heavy equipment operator at its Pickles Butte Landfill from 2012 until 2017.  In March 2017, Hartman, an Army veteran, informed both his immediate supervisor and the landfill director, David Loper, that he was taking narcotics prescribed to him for chronic pain.  

The county directed Hartman to provide, by a set deadline, medical substantiation of his prescription and verification that his use of narcotics would not affect his ability to safely operate equipment. Hartman attempted to obtain the documentation, but failed to provide it by the due date.

Loper sent Hartman a "Notice of Intent to Terminate," in late April, informing him that his employment with the county would be terminated effective May 2, 2017.  The notice contained a reference to a section of the county Personnel Manual, which provided employees an opportunity to request in writing, within two days after receiving the notice, a “good faith hearing” concerning the termination.  

Any such request would have to explain why the employee thought the termination was unwarranted or unlawful.  The notice recited that either Loper or his designee would conduct the hearing and the "[f]ailure to request a good faith hearing constitutes a failure to exhaust your remedies under the Personnel Rules."

Curiously, the notice concluded with the statement, "I wish you the best in your future endeavors."  Furthermore, prior to Hartman's receipt of the notice, the county had paid Hartman the balance of his accrued leave.  Had all been said and done?

Hartman did not request a hearing.  On May 3, 2017, the Human Resources Office sent him a letter stating that his last day of employment was May 2 and providing information about benefits "to assist you as you separate from Canyon County employment."   He filed a notice of claim with the county in July 2017, alleging he had been unlawfully terminated.  A week later, he filed a charge of discrimination with the Idaho Human Rights Commission (“IHRC”).

In November 2018, Hartman filed a complaint against the county in the state’s Third Judicial District Court, alleging (a) disability-based discrimination in violation of the Idaho Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and (b) unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). His lawsuit initially included a claim for unlawful termination in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, but he later voluntarily withdrew it.

After engaging in discovery, the county filed a motion seeking summary judgment, a request for a court ruling before a trial where key facts are not in question. Among the points it raised was that Hartman had failed to take advantage of the available administrative remedy by requesting a good faith hearing.  District Judge Christopher S. Nye heard argument on the motion and, in an oral ruling, expressed the belief that Hartman had raised credible factual issues in his ADA and Title VII retaliation claims. However, Judge Nye asked the parties to submit additional briefing on the administrative exhaustion argument, effectively acknowledging that a ruling for the county might be appropriate on that ground.

 The county argued that the grievance procedure set out in the Personnel Manual required Hartman to request a good faith hearing to exhaust his administrative remedies. Hartman countered that the Personnel Manual was not a contract and, therefore, could not bind him to any remedy.  Moreover, he also asserted that even if exhausting his remedies meant requesting the hearing, such a request would have been futile.

After considering the parties' supplemental briefing Judge Nye granted the county’s motion.   He reasoned that the Personnel Manual, being the official manual of procedures for the personnel system, required a request for a hearing and Hartman had not done so.  He entered a final judgment dismissing the case.

Hartman then filed a motion to set aside the judgment, reiterating his position that the Personal Manual cannot create an enforceable administrative remedy independent of a state statute or administrative rule. In addition, he asserted that he had raised a compelling issue  regarding the futility of seeking a good faith hearing because (a) the county paid him the full value of his accrued leave before serving him with the notice of intent to terminate and (b) the notice, signed by his supervisor who would conduct the good faith hearing, concluded by wishing him "the best in [his] future endeavors[,]" thus indicating that his supervisor had already decided to terminate his employment.

Judge Nye denied Hartman's motion, noting that "[a]fter reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court concludes that there are no legal or factual errors to correct."  Hartman appealed.  Under Idaho law, the state supreme court directly hears appeals from the district courts.

Hartman contended that the district court was wrong in concluding that the Personnel Manual could create a binding administrative remedy because such procedures must be based on a statute, rule or contract.  He further noted that nothing in the record suggests that the Personnel Manual was formally adopted by county ordinance.

For its part, the county maintained that the good faith hearing provided for in the Personnel Manual, which Hartman ignored or declined, was properly authorized under its constitutional and statutory authority to enact ordinances relating to employee matters.  According to the county, this administrative remedy need not necessarily be set forth in a statute or contract. 

The doctrine of administrative exhaustion is well-established in American law.  Generally, where a statute provides an administrative remedy or procedure to decide a contested matter, a party must first seek relief using that antecedent non-judicial process before the courts will act.  The rule serves two purposes: first, it allows authorities to resolve conflicts and make decisions within their expertise; second, by giving agencies first crack, fewer disputes end up on court dockets.    

“We have recognized that Idaho's constitution and statutes grant counties broad authority to legislate in the interest of the general welfare, which includes the ability to create and administer county personnel systems,” said Justice Colleen D. Zahn for a unanimous court.  “However, this grant of authority did not create an administrative remedy for employees which had to be exhausted in order for them to file suit. * * * The statutory and constitutional provisions Canyon County cites may give it authority to administer a personnel system, but they do not create, or obligate Canyon County to create, a grievance process for employees. * * * [T]he Canyon County ordinance in question does not create a binding administrative remedy. It only authorizes the issuance of personnel rules and provides that such rules will be binding on county employees.”

Under a work-sharing agreement with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the IHRC administers both Title VII and the ADA.  These laws contain statutory exhaustion requirements. “Canyon County has cited no legal authority supporting its assertion that it can unilaterally impose additional exhaustion requirements for these federal laws,” the opinion said. 

 As Judge Nye had mistakenly applied the exhaustion doctrine to dismiss Hartman’s claims, the justices overturned his ruling and sent the case back to him for further proceedings. 

Hartman v. Canyon County, Idaho, No. 48731, Idaho Sup. Ct., Aug. 22, 2022.