Evidentiary Hearing Mandate for PAB Summary Dispositions in Termination Appeals

Introduction

This case arises from an appeal by the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (“DOC”) of a Personnel Appeals Board (“PAB”) order reinstating a correctional lieutenant whom the DOC had terminated for alleged violations of use-of-force and suicide-prevention policies. The key dispute centers on whether, under New Hampshire Administrative Rules, the PAB may decide a motion for summary disposition in a termination appeal without convening a hearing at which the parties can present oral arguments and offers of proof. The parties are the DOC (appellant) and the terminated employee (appellee). The Supreme Court of New Hampshire resolves the procedural question of the appropriate hearing standard and remands for further proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court vacated the PAB’s summary-disposition order and remanded for a hearing. The Court held that when the PAB decides a motion for summary disposition in a termination appeal and finds no material facts in dispute, it must still afford the parties an opportunity for oral argument and offers of proof under N.H. Admin. R. Per-A 207.02(e)(2). The PAB’s reliance on superior-court summary judgment standards was permissible, but its failure to hold the mandated hearing violated its own rules. The matter is remanded for a full hearing to resolve whether the employee’s termination was just or unjust.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Appeal of N.H. Div. of State Police, 171 N.H. 262 (2018): A de novo standard applies to statutory and regulatory interpretations.
RSA 541:13 (2021): Establishes the standard for judicial review of PAB decisions—factual findings are prima facie lawful and reasonable; legal issues reviewed de novo.
Appeal of State of N.H., 175 N.H. 327 (2022): “Shall” imposes a mandatory duty when used in statutes and rules.
State v. Rix, 150 N.H. 131 (2003): A specific provision controls over a general one when statutes or rules conflict.
Appeal of Silva, 172 N.H. 183 (2019) & Doe v. Attorney General, 175 N.H. 349 (2022): Principles of agency rule interpretation—plain meaning, regulatory scheme, no judicial supplementation.
Appeal of Mullen, 169 N.H. 392 (2016): Due process and the relationship between the nature of an appeal’s subject matter and procedural protections.

These authorities guided the Court in determining that (1) reference to superior-court summary judgment standards is permissible under Per-A 206.05(f), and (2) the mandatory language of Per-A 207.02(e)(2) requires a hearing when no material facts are in dispute in a termination appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The Court first rejected the DOC’s contention that the PAB misapplied Per-A 206.05(f) by relying on civil summary judgment analogies. It held the PAB may use established case law to fill procedural gaps so long as it does not modify its enabling statutes or rules. Next, the Court analyzed Per-A 207.02(a), (d) and (e): the general rule limiting motion hearings to oral argument (207.02(a)) versus the specific termination-appeal rule requiring oral argument and offers of proof when facts are undisputed (207.02(d)–(e)). Applying the specific-over-general canon, the Court concluded Per-A 207.02(e)(2) is mandatory—“shall hear the case on the basis of oral argument and offers of proof” when no material facts are disputed. Because the PAB never held such a hearing, it violated its own rules. Finally, the Court vacated the PAB order and remanded for a hearing under Per-A 207.02(e)(2).

Impact

This decision clarifies procedural requirements for administrative appeals before the PAB, strengthening due process protections in termination cases. Going forward:

Parties in termination appeals can insist on a hearing with oral arguments and offers of proof even when no material facts are disputed.
The PAB must comply strictly with Per-A 207.02(e)(2) or risk vacatur and remand.
Other administrative bodies may look to this ruling for guidance on aligning summary-disposition practice with formal hearing requirements.

The decision reinforces precision in rule drafting and interpretation, discouraging hybrid procedures that undermine procedural safeguards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Disposition: An administrative equivalent of summary judgment—deciding a case based on undisputed facts without a full hearing.
Offers of Proof: A procedure where parties outline what evidence and testimony they would present at a hearing, ensuring the decision-maker understands their factual case.
Prima Facie Lawful and Reasonable: An administrative finding is presumed correct unless the reviewing court finds it clearly unreasonable or unlawful by a preponderance of the evidence.
De Novo Review: The court independently interprets statutes or rules without deferring to the agency’s interpretation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision establishes that even when no material facts are in dispute, the PAB must conduct a hearing with oral arguments and offers of proof before granting summary disposition in termination appeals. This ruling reinforces procedural fairness and ensures that affected employees and agencies can present their cases fully before an administrative decision becomes final. By remanding for the mandated hearing, the Court preserves both the efficiency of summary disposition and the due process rights of termination-appeal litigants.