Colorado’s second-highest court ruled last week that the Colorado State Personnel Board wrongly blocked a former employee from submitting documentation to challenge his termination, even though he followed the board’s instructions to obtain the materials.

Eric Strumpf was the budget and business operations director for the Colorado Department of Corrections. He requested emergency sick leave in November 2023 and used various leave programs to extend his absence until May 2024. At that point, the department terminated his employment.

Strumpf appealed his discharge, arguing that the government terminated him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it did not engage in the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations. An administrative law judge held a two-day evidentiary hearing and ultimately ruled in favor of Strumpf’s employer.

Strumpf then turned to the State Personnel Board. The notice issued to Strumpf indicated he would be “responsible for having the transcript prepared” if he wished. To create a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, it “must be prepared by a disinterested, recognized transcriber.”

In response to an email from Strumpf asking for clarification, a board employee told Strumpf he “may use a certified transcription service of your choice.”

Strumpf paid a company to create a transcript of the administrative law judge’s proceedings, but the corrections department moved to block it because it was not prepared by a court reporter. The State Personnel Board agreed and issued a decision upholding the administrative law judge’s ruling, based on the written arguments and the original decision.

Representing himself before the Court of Appeals, Strumpf argued he followed instructions, only for the personnel board to adopt an overly restrictive interpretation of the transcription requirement.

In response, the personnel board pointed to its rules requiring a “neutral and certified court reporter” to prepare transcripts.

“The Board had an established rule; Mr. Strumpf had a full and fair opportunity to comply with the rule; and Mr. Strumpf failed to do so,” wrote the Colorado Attorney General’s Office.

But a three-judge Court of Appeals panel found the board’s position problematic. Specifically, the board’s requirement for a court reporter to prepare the transcript conflicted with the other instructions it gave Strumpf — including that he could use a service of his choice.

“We thus conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, where Strumpf followed all the instructions he received from the Board regarding the preparation of transcripts, the Board abused its discretion by excluding the transcripts,” wrote Judge David H. Yun in the Feb. 12 opinion.

Because neither the State Personnel Board nor the appellate panel could address Strumpf’s underlying argument without the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, the Court of Appeals ordered the board to reconsider its decision.

The case is Strumpf v. Department of Corrections.