AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, an employee, challenged the decision made by the county manager, which mandated fifty-hour work weeks without holiday or snow day pay. The Plaintiff argued that filing a grievance with the county manager was futile since the manager was the decision-maker of the contested policy, leaving no further legal or statutory remedies available (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that it was futile to file a grievance with the county manager over the decision requiring fifty-hour work weeks without holiday or snow day pay, as the manager was the decision-maker. Asserted that administrative remedies need not be exhausted when it would be futile to do so or when a question of law is at issue (paras 2-3).
• Defendant: Sought dismissal on jurisdictional grounds for the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, particularly in situations where such efforts would be deemed futile (para 2).
• Whether the Plaintiff's claim of breach of an implied-in-fact contract required exhaustion of administrative remedies (para 6).
• Whether claims of unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel require the exhaustion of administrative remedies (paras 7-8).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied, and the summary judgment in favor of the Defendant was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge M. Monica Zamora, with Judges Julie J. Vargas and Kristina Bogardus concurring, provided several reasons for their decision:
  The Plaintiff's argument regarding the futility of filing a grievance was not considered because it was not raised as a defense to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment at the trial level (para 3).
  The Court proposed to conclude, as a matter of law, that the grievance procedure's permissive language only gave the Plaintiff the option of resolving his complaint with his supervisor or addressing it directly to the County Manager for a final determination. This interpretation was based on the parties' agreement on the definition of "grievance" in the personnel manual (para 5).
  The Court found no distinction between claims for breach of a written contract and breach of an implied-in-fact contract, concluding that any claim the Defendant breached an implied contract also fails because the Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies (para 6).
  The Court was not persuaded that granting relief under an unjust enrichment theory would have been proper where the personnel manual expressly provided grievance procedures (para 7).
  The Court denied the motion to amend regarding the promissory estoppel argument because it was a new argument not raised in the docketing statement, and there was no indication it was preserved for appeal (para 8).