A. Any officer or employee in the classified civil service may be dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation by the appointing authority after appointment or promotion is complete only by written order, stating specifically the reasons for the action. The order shall be filed in the officer's or employee's official county personnel record and a copy shall be furnished to the person to be dismissed, suspended or reduced.
B. Within ten calendar days after the order is presented to the officer or employee, the officer or employee may appeal the order through the clerk of the commission. On the filing of the appeal, the clerk of the commission shall immediately transmit the order and appeal to the commission for a hearing.
C. Within twenty calendar days after receiving the order and appeal, the commission shall set a date for a hearing of the appeal. The appellant may appear personally, produce evidence and have counsel.
D. The commission may appoint a hearing officer to conduct the hearing and take evidence on behalf of the commission. If a hearing officer is appointed to conduct the hearing, on conclusion of the hearing the hearing officer shall submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation to the commission.
E. Any appeal of a dismissal, suspension or reduction in rank in which a single hearing officer has been appointed by the commission to conduct the appeal hearing shall be open to the public unless the hearing officer determines that good cause exists to close the hearing.
F. In any appeal of a dismissal, suspension or reduction in rank in which a single hearing officer has been appointed to conduct the appeal hearing, the officer or employee or the employer may request a change of hearing officer. On the first request of a party, the commission shall grant the request. The commission may grant all other requests only on a showing that a fair and impartial hearing cannot be obtained due to the prejudice of the assigned hearing officer. The chairperson of the commission shall decide whether a sufficient showing of prejudice has been made.
G. Following the hearing, or if a hearing officer has been appointed, following receipt of the hearing officer's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation, the commission shall either affirm, modify or revoke the order.
H. The findings and decision of the commission shall be final and shall be subject to administrative review as provided in title 12, chapter 7, article 6.
I. This section does not apply to furloughs of classified employees if the furloughs are undertaken to address budget shortfalls or structural imbalance.
Notes of Decisions
Saldate v. Montgomery, 268 P.3d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 16× “17 make clear, a final decision by the Commission requires findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order, and the Commission can only do that by a vote of a majority of the members present who constitute a quorum.”
Hounshell v. White, 202 P.3d 466 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 12× “By minute entry order dated August 31, 2006, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hounshell and against Wengert and the Board.”
Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 218 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 11-808 authorizes a county to establish penalties for the violation of a zoning regulation or ordinance, § 11-808(D), and to appoint a hearing officer to conduct hearings regarding such violations, § 11-808(E), (F). The hearing officer’s decision may be reviewed by the board…”
Guertin v. Pinal Cnty., 875 P.2d 843 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “In that case, the employee’s claim that he was laid off in bad faith had previously been found to fit none of the enumerated categories of merit system jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 11-356, and to be outside the merit commission’s scope of review, Fleming v.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. Gottsponer, 723 P.2d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 11-356(A) provides: Any officer or employee in the classified civil service may be dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation by the appointing authority after appointment or promotion is complete only by written order, stating specifically the reasons for…”
Lawall v. Pima Cnty. Merit Comm'n & Scammon, 134 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 9× “” The procedure for employee appeals is set forth in § 11-356, which provides: A. Any officer or employee in the classified civil service may be dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation by the appointing authority after appointment or promotion is complete only by…”
Mullenaux v. Graham Cnty., 82 P.3d 362 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “By providing direct causes of action, both sections appear to be inconsistent with the administrative requirements of § 11-356, which also applies only to public employees.”
Pinal Cnty. v. Pinal Cnty. Emp. Merit Sys. Comm'n, Serb, 116 P.3d 624 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “” 6 A.R.S. § 11-356(A). A merit commission may modify or revoke the decision of an appointing authority “only if its action was arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause, or the penalty imposed was ‘so disproportionate .”
Fleming v. Pima Cnty., 685 P.2d 1301 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 11-356(A); Pima County Merit System Rules, Rule 12.”
Coombs v. Maricopa Cnty. Special Health Care Dist., 387 P.3d 743 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “, A.R.S. §§ 11-356(H) (2016) (findings and decision of county merit commission "shall be final and shall be subject to administrative review as provided in” the ARA); 32—128(J) (2016) (final decisions of board of technical registration "are subject to judicial review” pursuant…”
Fleming v. Pima Cnty., 611 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 5× “Although he did not appeal to the merit system commission until February 2, 1978, when he was no longer employed by Pima County, the commission granted him a hearing because of what it concluded was an ambiguity in the merit system rules.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-356(A) — 10 cases
Hounshell v. White, 202 P.3d 466 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“By minute entry order dated August 31, 2006, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hounshell and against Wengert and the Board.”
Fleming v. Pima Cnty., 685 P.2d 1301 (Ariz. 1984).
“A.R.S. § 11-356(A); Pima County Merit System Rules, Rule 12.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. Gottsponer, 723 P.2d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“A.R.S. § 11-356(A) provides: Any officer or employee in the classified civil service may be dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation by the appointing authority after appointment or promotion is complete only by written order, stating specifically the reasons for…”
Lawall v. Pima Cnty. Merit Comm'n & Scammon, 134 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“” The procedure for employee appeals is set forth in § 11-356, which provides: A. Any officer or employee in the classified civil service may be dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation by the appointing authority after appointment or promotion is complete only by…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-356(B) — 7 cases
Maricopa Cnty. v. Gottsponer, 723 P.2d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“A.R.S. § 11-356(A) provides: Any officer or employee in the classified civil service may be dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation by the appointing authority after appointment or promotion is complete only by written order, stating specifically the reasons for…”
Hounshell v. White, 202 P.3d 466 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“By minute entry order dated August 31, 2006, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hounshell and against Wengert and the Board.”
Pinal Cnty. v. Pinal Cnty. Emp. Merit Sys. Comm'n, Serb, 116 P.3d 624 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“” 6 A.R.S. § 11-356(A). A merit commission may modify or revoke the decision of an appointing authority “only if its action was arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause, or the penalty imposed was ‘so disproportionate .”
Lawall v. Pima Cnty. Merit Comm'n & Scammon, 134 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“” The procedure for employee appeals is set forth in § 11-356, which provides: A. Any officer or employee in the classified civil service may be dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation by the appointing authority after appointment or promotion is complete only by…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-356(C) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-356(D) — 8 cases
Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 218 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“§ 11-808 authorizes a county to establish penalties for the violation of a zoning regulation or ordinance, § 11-808(D), and to appoint a hearing officer to conduct hearings regarding such violations, § 11-808(E), (F). The hearing officer’s decision may be reviewed by the board…”
Guertin v. Pinal Cnty., 875 P.2d 843 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
“In that case, the employee’s claim that he was laid off in bad faith had previously been found to fit none of the enumerated categories of merit system jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 11-356, and to be outside the merit commission’s scope of review, Fleming v.”
Saldate v. Montgomery, 268 P.3d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“17 make clear, a final decision by the Commission requires findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order, and the Commission can only do that by a vote of a majority of the members present who constitute a quorum.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. Gottsponer, 723 P.2d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“A.R.S. § 11-356(A) provides: Any officer or employee in the classified civil service may be dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation by the appointing authority after appointment or promotion is complete only by written order, stating specifically the reasons for…”
Pinal Cnty. v. Pinal Cnty. Emp. Merit Sys. Comm'n, Serb, 116 P.3d 624 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“” 6 A.R.S. § 11-356(A). A merit commission may modify or revoke the decision of an appointing authority “only if its action was arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause, or the penalty imposed was ‘so disproportionate .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-356(F) — 2 cases
Saldate v. Montgomery, 268 P.3d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“17 make clear, a final decision by the Commission requires findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order, and the Commission can only do that by a vote of a majority of the members present who constitute a quorum.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-356(G) — 3 cases
Saldate v. Montgomery, 268 P.3d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“17 make clear, a final decision by the Commission requires findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order, and the Commission can only do that by a vote of a majority of the members present who constitute a quorum.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-356(H) — 1 case
Coombs v. Maricopa Cnty. Special Health Care Dist., 387 P.3d 743 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“, A.R.S. §§ 11-356(H) (2016) (findings and decision of county merit commission "shall be final and shall be subject to administrative review as provided in” the ARA); 32—128(J) (2016) (final decisions of board of technical registration "are subject to judicial review” pursuant…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.