House Education Committee approves HB 120 to allow district-court jury trials in certain agency disputes

CHEYENNE — The Wyoming House Education Committee on Feb. 7 approved House Bill 120 as amended, allowing people aggrieved by certain contested agency decisions to seek de novo review and a jury trial in district court when a penalty of at least $1,000 is imposed or a professional or occupational license is at stake.

The amendment, moved and explained in committee by Representative Strzok, narrows the bill from its original draft and removes a right to a jury trial during the administrative process while preserving the option to obtain a jury trial by taking the matter to district court. “The amendment removes the right to a jury trial during the administrative process, but the second thing the amendment does is to provide the opportunity for anyone who disagrees with the outcome of the contested hearing to appeal to the district court and obtain a jury trial if they wish,” Representative Strzok said.

Under the amendment, the committee said, the statute would permit a person adversely affected by a final agency decision in a contested case to seek de novo review in the district court where the agency action occurred and to request a jury trial there. Representative Strzok summarized key changes: the penalty threshold would be raised from $20 to $1,000, the provision would apply to cases involving professional or occupational licenses (not driver’s licenses), and conforming exceptions would be added to exhaustion requirements so a person can proceed directly to court when the statutory conditions are met.

The amendment also adds a mechanism for appeal: a party that receives a final district court judgment after a jury trial may seek review by the Wyoming Supreme Court “as in other civil cases,” the amendment text states, and requires the district court to conduct jury trials “in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure,” language the sponsor read into the record.

Representative Singh asked whether the narrower amendment still accomplished the sponsor’s original goal; Representative Strzok responded that it did. Representative Bratton expressed support for the amendment and asked whether the committee would consider adopting it as a substitute bill; the sponsor said they had considered that option but chose not to.

The committee approved the amendment and then passed House Bill 120, as amended, on a roll-call vote. The clerk recorded eight ayes and no nays; Chairman Andrew was excused. Recorded votes in favor were: Representative Bratton (aye); Representative Erickson (aye); Representative Guggenmoss (aye); Representative Kelly (aye); Vice Chair Lawley (aye); Representative Singh (aye); Representative Strock (aye); and Representative Williams (aye).

The sponsor and several committee members said the change is intended to address concerns about the scope of board powers and to provide additional recourse for individuals facing significant sanctions. Representative Strzok said she hoped the amendment would “bring some light to what’s gone on” and serve as a starting point for further review of board authority.

After the vote committee staff reminded members that interim topic submissions open Monday and close Feb. 21. With no further business, the committee adjourned.