44-1010. Petition for reconsideration of orders of commission. Any party being dissatisfied with any order or decision of the commission may petition for reconsideration in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 77-529 and amendments thereto. No cause of action arising out of any order or decision of the commission shall accrue in any court to any party unless such party shall petition for reconsideration as herein provided. No party shall, in any court, urge or rely upon any ground not set forth in the petition for reconsideration.
History: L. 1961, ch. 248, § 7; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 150; July 1, 1989.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Administrative Law: The Kansas Commission on Civil Rights—True De Novo Review Arrives," Samuel D. Ogelby, 16 W.L.J. 161 (1976).
"Administrative Law: Judicial Review of No Probable Cause Determinations," Jan E. Montgomery, 18 W.L.J. 335 (1979).
"Kansas Discrimination Law—Practice and Procedure," David L. Ryan, 49 J.K.B.A. 35, 45, (1980).
"Appellate Court Jurisdiction: An Update," Debra S. Byrd, 58 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 21, 23 (1989).
"Challenging and Defending Agency Actions in Kansas," Steve Leben, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 22, 33 (1995).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Rehearing requirement is reasonable procedure in exhausting administrative remedies; not repugnant to provisions of K.S.A. 44-1011. Jenkins v. Newman Memorial County Hospital, 212 Kan. 92, 93, 94, 96, 99, 510 P.2d 132; disapproved. Stephens v. Unified School District, 218 Kan. 220, 225, 227, 546 P.2d 197.
2. Written notice of rehearing denial not required; appeal not timely commenced. Kansas Commission on Civil Rights v. City of Topeka Street Department, 212 Kan. 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 511 P.2d 253.
3. Referred to in setting aside injunction and judgment; administrative remedies not exhausted. Jarvis v. Kansas Commission on Civil Rights, 215 Kan. 902, 905, 528 P.2d 1232.
4. Motion for rehearing prerequisite to judicial review; review limited to issues raised. Stephens v. Unified School District, 218 Kan. 220, 225, 227, 546 P.2d 197.
5. Procedural requirements of section reasonable; not repugnant to scope of judicial review under K.S.A. 44-1011. Stephens v. Unified School District, 218 Kan. 220, 225, 227, 546 P.2d 197.
6. No right to appeal "no probable cause" determination of investigating commissioner under K.S.A. 44-1011. Bush v. City of Wichita, 223 Kan. 651, 657, 576 P.2d 1071.
7. Mentioned; showing of prejudice required before agency action may be set aside for lack of punctuality. Jones v. The Grain Club, 227 Kan. 148, 149, 605 P.2d 142.
8. Statute, when read with K.S.A. 44-1011 and 44-1115, vests exclusive jurisdiction of age discrimination claim in district court. Ditch v. Bd. of County Com'rs of County of Shawnee, 650 F. Supp. 1245, 1253 (1986).
9. Failure to seek rehearing of KCCR finding of no probable cause did not preclude federal action. Ditch v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Shawnee Cty., Kans., 669 F. Supp. 1553, 1554 (1987).
10. Motion for rehearing a prerequisite to judicial review; court's inquiry limited to issues fairly raised by the motion. Kansas State Univ. v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 14 Kan. App. 2d 428, 435, 796 P.2d 1046 (1990).
11. Cited; construction and application of time allowed for filing petition with KCCR. United Steelworkers of America v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 17 Kan. App. 2d 863, 864, 867, 845 P.2d 89 (1993).
12. Statute requires petition for reconsideration by agency as prerequisite to action in district court. United Steelworkers of America v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 253 Kan. 327, 331, 855 P.2d 905 (1993).
13. Whether KHRC's termination of proceedings following notification of federal suit satisfied exhaustion of administrative remedies examined. Wagher v. Guy's Foods, Inc., 256 Kan. 300, 309, 885 P.2d 1197 (1994).
14. Cited; whether motion to reconsider order of Kansas civil service board is permissive tolling limitations period for judicial review examined. State Bank Commissioner v. Emery, 19 Kan. App. 2d 1063, 1066, 880 P.2d 783 (1994).
15. Whether plaintiff's KAAD claims were barred by failure to litigate claim first with KHRC examined. Davidson v. MAC Equipment, Inc., 878 F. Supp. 186, 189 (1995).
16. Employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing age discrimination claim. O'Loughlin v. The Pritchard Corp., 972 F. Supp. 1352, 1361 (1997).
17. Employee's failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived federal district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Leeker v. Gill Studios, Inc., 21 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1273 (1998).
|
|