Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-102 / 11-1174 Filed April 25, 2012

DEBORAH S. SCHROEDER, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD and STATE OF IOWA (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION), Respondents-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D.J. Stovall, Judge.

Deborah Schroeder appeals from the district court's judicial review ruling affirming the finding she was exempt from the grievance process set forth in Iowa Code section 8A.415 (2009). REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH

INSTRUCTIONS.

James L. Sayre of James L. Sayre, P.C., Clive, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jeanie Kunkle Vaudt, Assistant Attorney General, and Jan V. Berry of the Public Employment Relations Board for appellees.

Heard by Eisenhauer, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.

2 DOYLE, J. Deborah Schroeder appeals from the district court's order on judicial review affirming a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decision concluding Schroeder was not a merit-covered employee under Iowa Code chapter 8A, subchapter IV, for purposes of her separation from employment with the Iowa Department of Education (IDOE). PERB concluded Schroeder was ineligible to pursue merit grievance procedures because she was a member of IDOE's "professional staff." Iowa Code section 256.9(4) (2009) provides that members of IDOE's professional staff are not subject to the merit system provisions of chapter 8A, subchapter IV. Schroeder maintains she was not a member of IDOE's "professional staff" and the merit system provisions were applicable to her. Because we agree with Schroeder, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. In 2005, Schroeder applied for a position with the IDOE as an "Education Program Consultant (Finance)." The position's job opening announcement

stated the salary range for the position was $46,550.40 to $70,241.60 annually and the position did not require a degree if the applicant had the requisite amount of experience. Schroeder provided her resume to the IDOE, which listed her advanced degrees in the business field, as well as experience in the accounting field and as a business manager for two different school districts. Schroeder was ultimately offered the position. The offer letter she

received did not indicate the position was classified as part of the IDOE's "professional staff," considered a non-merit system position, or exempt from Iowa

3 Code chapter 8A. Later materials Schroeder received after accepting the

position, including a position description questionnaire and written job description, also did not indicate the position was a "professional staff" position, a non-merit system position, or exempt from Iowa Code chapter 8A. The questionnaire specifically stated the position was not considered to be supervisory. However, the job description did define the position as one who "[p]rovides professional education consultative services and represents the [IDOE]" in certain instances. Additionally, the job description set forth examples of work for the position, including: Advises schools and school districts professional staff through in-service and staff development meetings, workshops, or individual consultation on the evaluation of curriculum structure or design, instructional methods, use of community resources . . . so as to provide improvement and consistency in PK-12 and two-year post-secondary education programs throughout the state. Coordinates, interprets, and confers with school district professional staff . . . regarding the compliance of educational programs with provisions of the Code of Iowa, [IDOE] administrative rules . . . . Serves on task forces and attends professional conferences and meetings . . . . .... Evaluates the education and experience of individuals applying for teaching certificates, endorsements, approvals, statements of professional recognition . . . . Among the competencies required for the job were knowledge of the IDOE's "policies, procedures, and regulations," "professional teacher standards and educational requirements," and the "[a]bility to apply and interpret laws, rules, regulations and policies/procedure as they relate to the [IDOE] and the educational programs of the state."

4 On December 3, 2008, Schroeder was notified in writing she was "being placed on paid administrative leave which may lead to dismissal from [her] at-will position at the [IDOE]" and she could request a hearing with the director of the IDOE pursuant to section 256.10. Attached to the notification was a memo

outlining the reasons for her potential termination action, including allegations of insubordination, unilaterally giving guidance to the field, not completing essential job functions on time and failing to notify her supervisor of same, outstanding work deliverables reaching back over one year, doing work not assigned to her, and not following the chain of command. Thereafter, Schroeder requested a hearing with the director of the IDOE. Following the hearing, the director on January 2, 2009, notified Schroeder in writing that "after reviewing all the information, [the director had] made the decision to uphold the termination of [Schroeder's] at-will position at the [IDOE]" effective immediately. On January 8, 2009, Schroeder filed a non-contract grievance with the Iowa Department of Administrative Services (IDAS). dismissed her grievance stating: After reviewing the material [Schroeder has] provided . . . , [IDAS] has determined that [it] does not have the authority to provide the remedy [Schroeder has] requested. As a non-contract, non-merit employee, [Schroeder's] employment was at the discretion of the [d]irector of the [IDOE]. As [Schroeder has] had a hearing in front of the [d]irector prior to [her] discharge from employment, it appears that [Schroeder] has exhausted [her] recourse under the State's rules. On January 9, 2009, Schroeder filed a state employee grievance appeal before the PERB pursuant to Iowa Code section 8A.415(2), arguing the IDOE did Five days later, IDAS

5 not meet the requirements for just cause in terminating her employment. The IDOE and IDAS (the State) filed an answer and motion to dismiss, asserting Schroeder was not a merit system covered employee and her remedy was limited to the process set forth in section 256.10. Following a hearing, an

administrative law judge (ALJ) conversely concluded Schroeder was a merit system covered employee and eligible to pursue her section 8A.415(2) appeal. The State then filed an interlocutory appeal to the PERB challenging the ALJ's finding that Schroeder was a merit system covered employee. The PERB granted the State's appeal, and a hearing was held. Following the hearing, the PERB reversed the ALJ, concluding Schroeder was not a merit-system-covered employee. Specifically, the PERB determined the position held by Schroeder was that of a professional staff employee and was therefore exempt from the merit system pursuant to Iowa Code section 256.9(4). In so finding, the PERB determined it did not have jurisdiction to hear Schroeder's section 8A.415(2) grievance and dismissed her appeal. Schroeder sought judicial review of the PERB's dismissal of her appeal. The district court affirmed, finding "PERB did not err in interpreting the term `professional staff'" and in dismissing Schroeder's appeal. Schroeder now appeals. II. Scope and Standard of Review. Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of agency decision making. Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 784 N.W.2d 8, 10 (Iowa 2010). We will apply the standards of section 17A.19(10) to determine whether we reach the same results as the district court. Id. "The district court may grant relief if the agency action has prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner, and the agency action meets one of the enumerated criteria contained in

6 section 17A.19(10)(a) through (n)." Id.; see also Iowa Code

Download DEBORAH S. SCHROEDER, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOAR

Iowa Law