Cooke v. University of North Dakota
1999 N.D. LEXIS 252, 603 N.W.2d 504, 1999 ND 238 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When bringing a claim against the state, a claimant must both exhaust all available administrative remedies and satisfy the statutory notice of claim requirement within 180 days of the injury. These are independent obligations, and pursuing administrative remedies does not toll or excuse the deadline for filing the notice of claim.
Facts:
- In April 1998, Paula Cooke was an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota (UND) and expressed interest in an open Director position.
- On June 1, 1998, UND appointed another person to the Director position.
- Cooke learned on June 2, 1998, that she had not been selected for the position.
- Alleging discrimination, Cooke presented a formal complaint to UND’s Affirmative Action Office on August 18, 1998.
- On November 6, 1998, the director of UND’s Affirmative Action Office sent a letter to Cooke informing her that her claim lacked merit and was rejected.
- Shortly after her internal claim was rejected, Cooke resigned from her position.
- On February 26, 1999, Cooke’s attorney sent a notice of claim on her behalf to the state's Office of Management and Budget, which received it on March 2, 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- Paula Cooke filed a lawsuit against the University of North Dakota (UND) in a North Dakota district court (trial court), alleging violations of the North Dakota Human Rights Act.
- UND filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(i).
- UND argued that Cooke had failed to present a timely notice of claim as required by statute N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1).
- The district court granted UND's motion and entered a judgment dismissing Cooke's complaint with prejudice.
- Cooke (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state employee's obligation to exhaust administrative remedies excuse or delay the separate statutory requirement to file a notice of claim with the state within 180 days of the discovery of an injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Kapsner, Justice
No, the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies does not excuse or delay the statutory notice of claim requirement; both are mandatory and concurrent obligations. The court reasoned that the notice of claim statute, N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1), and the common law doctrine of exhaustion of remedies are not inconsistent. The statute expressly distinguishes between a 'claim' and a 'legal action,' indicating the legislature intended the notice of claim to be a prerequisite regardless of any subsequent litigation. The court held that Cooke's injury occurred when she learned she was not appointed on June 2, 1998, not when her internal administrative grievance was denied months later. Therefore, her 180-day period to file a notice of claim began on June 2, 1998. Since her notice was not sent until February 26, 1999, it was untimely, and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear her case.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that statutory prerequisites for suing the state, such as notice of claim deadlines, are strictly enforced jurisdictional hurdles that are not tolled by other pre-litigation processes. It clarifies that a claimant must pursue parallel tracks: satisfying internal agency procedures while simultaneously meeting external statutory deadlines for preserving a right to sue. This ruling places a significant burden on potential plaintiffs to be vigilant about all applicable deadlines from the moment an injury occurs, as failure to comply with one can completely bar their access to the courts, regardless of the merits of their underlying claim.
