Background
The Colorado Department of Corrections terminated criminal investigator Gary Spangler after evidence from two closed cases was found in the trunk of his state-issued vehicle. Spangler explained that the evidence had inadvertently fallen from boxes while he was moving offices. He also maintained that he had handled the cases consistently with the practices in effect under his former supervisor, including communicating verbally about prosecutors’ decisions not to file charges.
After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge found that CDOC had not proved most of the alleged regulatory violations. Although Spangler admitted one violation involving the requirement to secure evidence in an OIG storage area, the ALJ concluded that termination was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to rule or law. The ALJ reversed the termination and awarded attorney fees and costs, and the State Personnel Board affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s order. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings that Spangler committed only one of the alleged regulatory violations and that his other conduct complied with the practices in effect when he handled the cases. The court deferred to the ALJ’s credibility findings, including the decision to credit Spangler’s former supervisor over CDOC’s appointing authority.
The court also upheld the determination that termination was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to rule or law. CDOC failed to investigate diligently, did not obtain or fairly consider important exculpatory evidence, relied on an investigative report that omitted or misstated relevant information, and used regulations that were not shown to have been in effect during the underlying events. The ALJ did not violate the party-presentation principle by recognizing the regulations’ stated effective dates.
Finally, the court affirmed the award of attorney fees and costs because the termination allegations disrespected the truth and were generally groundless. It also awarded Spangler reasonable appellate fees and costs and remanded to the administrative agency to determine the amount.
Key Takeaways
- An appointing authority must diligently obtain and candidly consider relevant evidence, including mitigating and exculpatory information, before disciplining a certified state employee.
- A single, unintentional evidence-storage violation did not justify termination where the employee had no disciplinary history, the cases were no longer prosecutable, and corrective action had not first been pursued.
- An ALJ may draw reasonable inferences from admitted regulations, including from their effective dates, without violating the party-presentation principle.
- Attorney fees may be awarded when the particular discipline imposed is groundless, even if the evidence could support a lesser corrective action.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Colorado agencies cannot sustain severe employee discipline through an incomplete investigation or by disregarding evidence favorable to the employee. The justification for the particular sanction—not merely the existence of some misconduct—must be supported by the record and comply with State Personnel Board rules.
It also illustrates the financial consequences of an unsupported termination: an employee who successfully defends the reversal may recover fees and costs incurred both before the Board and on appeal.