Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. and Jack Phillips v. Autumn Scardina
2024 CO 67 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), once the Civil Rights Commission commences formal administrative adjudication of a discrimination claim, the claimant cannot file a new lawsuit in district court. The claimant's exclusive remedy for an improper dismissal at that stage is to seek judicial review by appealing to the court of appeals.
Facts:
- On June 26, 2017, Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman, called Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a custom birthday cake that was pink on the inside with blue frosting.
- An employee of Masterpiece, owned by Jack Phillips, initially told Scardina that the shop could make such a cake.
- Scardina then explained the cake's design was intended to celebrate her gender transition from male to female.
- Upon learning the purpose of the cake, the employee informed Scardina that the shop would not make it 'because of the message.'
- Scardina called back and spoke to another employee who confirmed that Masterpiece would not create the cake for that purpose.
- Phillips's religious beliefs prevent him from designing cakes that express messages he opposes, including those celebrating gender transitions.
Procedural Posture:
- Autumn Scardina filed a formal discrimination charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Division ('the Division').
- The Division investigated and issued a determination of probable cause that Masterpiece had discriminated against Scardina.
- After compulsory mediation failed, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ('the Commission') took jurisdiction and issued a Notice of Hearing and Formal Complaint, initiating an administrative adjudication.
- Separately, Jack Phillips sued the Commission in federal court; Scardina's motion to intervene in that case was denied.
- The Commission and Phillips reached a confidential settlement in the federal case, a term of which was the dismissal of Scardina's administrative complaint.
- The Commission held an emergency meeting and voted to dismiss the complaint against Masterpiece, issuing a final Closure Order stating administrative remedies were exhausted.
- Scardina filed a new lawsuit against Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips in a Colorado state district court for violating CADA.
- Following a bench trial, the district court found in favor of Scardina.
- Masterpiece and Phillips, as appellants, appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals.
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 the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) permit a district court to hear a discrimination claim filed by a complainant after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has commenced administrative adjudication proceedings on that same claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hart
No. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) does not permit a district court to hear a discrimination claim after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has commenced administrative adjudication proceedings. The court's reasoning is that CADA establishes two mutually exclusive procedural paths for resolving a claim after an initial administrative investigation: 1) administrative adjudication by the Commission, or 2) judicial adjudication in district court. A claimant can only access the district court path through specific statutory 'off-ramps,' such as the agency missing a deadline, finding no probable cause, or the claimant obtaining a 'right-to-sue' letter before a formal hearing is noticed. In this case, the Commission's issuance of a Notice of Hearing placed Scardina's claim squarely on the administrative adjudication path, thereby closing the door to filing a new action in district court. When the Commission subsequently dismissed her claim as part of a settlement to which she was not a party, her sole statutory remedy was to appeal that dismissal—characterized as a 'refusal to issue an order'—to the Colorado Court of Appeals under § 24-34-307. Filing a new lawsuit in district court was not a permissible alternative.
Dissenting - Justice Gabriel
Yes. The district court had the authority to hear Scardina's claim. The majority disposes of the case on a novel procedural ground that no party argued, violating the party presentation principle. The dissent argues that the majority's interpretation of CADA is incorrect and creates unsound public policy by preventing administrative agencies from settling cases over a complainant's objection, no matter how unreasonable. Since the Commission itself formally closed the case and issued an order stating that Scardina had 'exhausted' her administrative remedies, she was entitled to file her claim in district court. Furthermore, the appeal route suggested by the majority was not viable because the Commission's dismissal was not a final, appealable order, meaning the court of appeals would have lacked jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a rigid procedural framework for CADA claims in Colorado, establishing that the administrative adjudication and district court litigation paths are mutually exclusive once a formal hearing process begins. By prioritizing procedural strictness, the ruling demonstrates that a claimant's failure to follow the correct appellate path after an agency action can be fatal to their claim, regardless of its underlying merits. This creates a potential trap for claimants whose cases are improperly terminated by an agency mid-process, as their only recourse is a direct appeal rather than a new lawsuit. The case significantly clarifies the procedural roadmap for CADA litigation and underscores the importance of appealing adverse administrative decisions directly and promptly.
