Background
Ayman Salloum worked in the Colorado Department of Transportation’s environmental unit for about 20 years. After a February 2025 meeting about his timesheet, Salloum alleged that his supervisor accused him of time theft and fraud. He filed a Step One grievance seeking an apology, monetary compensation, discipline for the supervisor, and reassignment to a different supervisor. CDOT denied the grievance, and Salloum pursued a Step Two grievance.
Before CDOT issued a Step Two decision, it terminated Salloum on April 30, 2025, for disciplinary reasons. Salloum appealed his termination to the State Personnel Board on May 7, alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. On May 13, he filed a second appeal asserting the same claims and adding CDOT’s failure to issue a Step Two decision. The administrative law judge dismissed the May 13 appeal as untimely, and the Board adopted that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that termination ended Salloum’s pending department-level grievance under Board Rule 8-15(A), so the deadlines governing a pending Step Two grievance no longer applied. Instead, Rule 8-7 required an appeal to the Board within ten days after notice of the challenged action.
The May 13 appeal was filed 13 days after Salloum received notice of his termination. Even accepting Salloum’s position that the appeal also concerned his supervisor’s February conduct and CDOT’s handling of his grievance, those asserted adverse actions occurred before his termination. Rule 8-15(C) preserves the Board’s authority to hear discrimination or whistleblower claims related to a grievance after an employee is separated, but it does not excuse compliance with Rule 8-7’s filing deadline.
Key Takeaways
- A state employee’s pending department-level grievance ends upon separation from employment.
- After termination ends a grievance, a Board appeal must comply with the ten-day deadline in Rule 8-7.
- Rule 8-15(C) preserves jurisdiction over qualifying discrimination or whistleblower claims after separation, but does not extend the deadline for bringing them.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between the Board’s continuing authority to hear discrimination-related claims after an employee leaves state employment and the separate requirement that those claims be timely filed. Employees and counsel cannot rely on an unfinished internal grievance process to extend the deadline once termination ends that process.