 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. City of Topeka12/11/1998
Appeal from Shawnee district court; TERRY L. BULLOCK, Judge. Opinion filed December 11, 1998. Affirmed.
This is a declaratory judgment action brought by the State of Kansas on behalf of the Kansas Department of Human Resources (KDHR) against the City of Topeka (City). The district court entered judgment in the City's favor. The KDHR appealed. KDHR's motion to transfer the appeal to this court from the Court of Appeals was granted.
This dispute arose in an employment discrimination matter. Thelma A. Drayton, a former employee of KDHR, filed with the City's Human Relations Commission a complaint of race discrimination against KDHR, alleging a violation of the City's anti-discrimination ordinance. On the ground that the City does not have authority to investigate or enforce a complaint against the state agency, KDHR refused to cooperate in the investigation and filed a petition for declaratory relief in the district court.
The following facts were stipulated by the parties. In August 1997, the Secretary of KDHR received a letter from the Director of the City's Human Relations Commission advising that the City had received a complaint against KDHR by former employee Drayton. The complaint alleged race discrimination against her in job assignments and disciplinary action.
KDHR answered that the City did not have jurisdiction to investigate an employment discrimination complaint against the state agency. KDHR requested transfer of Drayton's complaint to the Kansas Human Rights Commission. The City refused.
In the district court, KDHR filed a petition for declaratory relief on the question of whether the City has authority to process employment discrimination complaints against the State and/or its agencies. Based on the stipulated facts, briefs, and oral arguments of counsel, the district court held that the City was acting within its authority in enforcing its employment discrimination ordinance against a state agency.
The sole issue in the appeal is whether the City may enforce its employment discrimination ordinance against a state agency.
This court's review of the trial court's Conclusions of law is unlimited. Gillespie v. Seymour, 250 Kan. 123, 129, 823 P.2d 782 (1991).
The district court stated the issue as "whether through legislative enactments of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination [KAAD], K.S.A. [44-1001] et seq., and the Kansas Tort Claims Act, K.S.A. [75-6101] et seq., the tate has waived its sovereign immunity." With regard to the former, the district court stated: "Through the KAAD, the legislature has expressly made the State liable for acts of discrimination in its employment practices." On that basis, the district court concluded that "the tate has waived its immunity in cases of employment discrimination." In the Tort Claims Act, the district court found another waiver of state immunity and quoted Commerce Bank of St. Joseph v. State, 251 Kan. 207, Syl. 2, 833 P.2d 996 (1992):
"'Under K.S.A. 75-6103, the State is liable for damages (1) caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any of its employees (2) while the employee was acting within the scope of the employment and (3) under circumstances where the governmental entity, if a private person, would be liable under the laws of this state.'"
The district court considered and ruled out the possibility that a statutory exception to the waiver of immunity might apply. First, it noted that employment discrimination is not one of the exceptions expressly identified in the Act. The district court further concluded that the exception for discretionary functions would not apply. It reasoned that the KAAD im
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|