(1) The supreme court, pursuant to section 5 (3) of article VI of the state constitution, shall prescribe, by rule, a personnel classification plan for all courts of record to be funded by the state, as provided in section 13-3-104.
(2) Such personnel classification and compensation plan shall include:
(a) A basic compensation plan of pay ranges to which classes of positions are assigned and may be reassigned;
(b) The qualifications for each position or class of positions, including education, experience, special skills, and legal knowledge;
(c) An outline of the duties to be performed in each position or class of positions;
(d) The classification of all positions based on the required qualifications and the duties to be performed, taking into account, where applicable, the amount and kinds of judicial business in each court of record subject to the provisions of this section;
(e) The number of full-time and part-time positions, by position title and classification, in each court of record subject to the provisions of this section;
(f) The procedures for and the regulations governing the appointment and removal of court personnel; and
(g) The procedures for and regulations governing the promotion or transfer of court personnel.
(3) The supreme court shall also prescribe by rule:
(a) The amount, terms, and conditions of sick leave and vacation time for court personnel, including annual allowance and accumulation thereof; and
(b) Hours of work and other conditions of employment.
(4) To the end that all state employees are treated generally in a similar manner, the supreme court, in promulgating rules as set forth in this section, shall take into consideration the compensation and classification plans, vacation and sick leave provisions, and other conditions of employment applicable to employees of the executive and legislative departments.
Source: L. 69: p. 246, § 4. C.R.S. 1963: § 37-11-7.
ANNOTATION
The Colorado judicial system personnel rules do not create an objective expectation of tenure which should be characterized as a property interest subject to due process protection. Hamm v. Scott, 426 F. Supp. 950 (D. Colo. 1977).
Contractual right of certified employee to continued employment would violate state policy. Even if the language of Colorado judicial system personnel rules 25 and 26, which relate to the dismissal of certified employees, could be read to create a contractual right to continued employment, a certified employee could not prevail because the recognition of such a contract would violate the expressed public policy of the state of Colorado. Hamm v. Scott, 426 F. Supp. 950 (D. Colo. 1977).
The fourteenth amendment affords no extraordinary protection. Even if it were assumed that a certified employee had a recognizable property interest which would not be contrary to express public policy, the fourteenth amendment affords him no protection other than the ordinary protections that would be afforded in a court of law on a breach of contract suit. Hamm v. Scott, 426 F. Supp. 950 (D. Colo. 1977).
Requirements for protection of certified employee. The minimum opportunity to learn of the reasons for the action terminating employment and a chance to address the decision-maker is all that would be required as protection to a certified employee. Hamm v. Scott, 426 F. Supp. 950 (D. Colo. 1977).