 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Conners v. City of Colorado Springs12/11/1997
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Marquez and Taubman, JJ., concur
This appeal by plaintiff, Kathleen F. Conners, from the judgment dismissing her complaint against defendant, City of Colorado Springs, presents the primary issue whether a claim by a public employee against a municipality under the Colorado Civil Rights Act (CRA), Section24-34-301, et seq., C.R.S. 1997, is subject to the notice provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (GIA), Section24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1997. Because we conclude that the GIA does not apply to a civil rights claim under the CRA, we reverse the dismissal of the claim based upon the CRA and remand that claim for further proceedings. We affirm the dismissal of the common law claims asserted by plaintiff.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged that she had been employed by the City for nearly three years before she was terminated. She alleged that, until the immediate events giving rise to her claims, she had been ranked as a superior employee. She asserted, however, that, shortly after she complained about her supervisor's use of vulgar and sexually suggestive language, she received an unsatisfactory rating. According to the complaint, about two months later, she was terminated from her position with the City, purportedly for lack of work, but another person was hired to take the position from which she had been discharged. Finally, she asserted that she had exhausted the administrative remedies available to her under the CRA.
Based upon these factual allegations, plaintiff contended that she had been required to endure a hostile environment because of her gender, that she was discharged because of her legitimate complaints about that environment, and that the City's actions in these respects constituted "unfair employment practices" under the CRA.
Later, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add common law claims based upon invasion of privacy and extreme and outrageous conduct. Her motion asserted that she had given timely notice to the City of these claims pursuant to the GIA.
The City moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint on jurisdictional grounds. It asserted that the GIA applied to all of the claims asserted by plaintiff, but that no notice under that act of any of those claims had been given until July 1994, although her discharge occurred in February 1993. Hence, it asserted that the notice was untimely under the GIA, Section24-10-109, C.R.S. 1997, which requires that such notice be given within 180 days after a plaintiff's discovery of an injury .
In response, plaintiff argued that any notice requirement of the GIA was satisfied by her service of the charges under the CRA on the City. In addition, plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to assert a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section2000e(1994).
The court rejected plaintiff's motion to amend to assert a Title VII claim as untimely. In addition, it concluded that, because plaintiff had failed to provide a timely notice to the City pursuant to the GIA, it lacked jurisdiction over any of the claims asserted. Consequently, it entered judgment dismissing all of those claims, and it is from that judgment that plaintiff appeals.
I.
Plaintiff asserts that the court erred in dismissing the claim asserted by her under the CRA on the ground that she had failed to comply with the notice provisions of the GIA. We agree.
Section 24-10-108, C.R.S. 1997, of the GIA provides that:
Except as provided in sections 24-10-104 to 24-10-106, sovereign immunity shall be a bar to any action agai
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|