Williams v. Department of Public Safety

Opinion by

1 1 Brett L. Williams spent twelve years as a Colorado State Patrol (CSP) employee, climbing the ranks from trooper to captain. *766In 2010, he resigned from CSP to start a new career as a helicopter pilot, But when Williams applied for reinstatement just three months later, his most closely-guarded secret-he is gay-was revealed. After Williams failed a polygraph examination and a swift investigation concerning some of his responses, CSP refused to reinstate him. But was that decision illegal discrimination based on Williams' sexual orientation?

I. Background

A. Procedure

T2 Williams filed a complaint W1th the State Personnel Board (Board). The complaint alleged that CSP had acted arbitrarily or capriciously and that it had discriminated against him on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), sections 24-84-401 to -406, C.R.S. 2015. The Board referred the complaint to an administrative law judge (ALJ) for hearing. '

18 After a five-day evidentiary hearing, the ALJ issued an initial decision with,detailed factual findings that concluded that CSP's actions were arbitrary, capricious, and constituted unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. . She awarded Williams front pay in lieu of reinstatement, back pay, attorney fees, and costs in amounts to be determined following action by the Board,.

[ 4 CSP appealed the initial decision to the Board. It affirmed all of the ALJ's conclusions and findings except for one: that CSP's culture was anti-gay. The Board then remanded the case for the ALJ to determine remedies.

15 After another evidentiary hearing, the ALJ issued an amended order awarding Williams $172,742 in back pay and $595,526 in front pay. Both parties appealed and the Board affirmed. Then CSP appealed and Williams cross-appealed to this court.

B. Facts

T6 Williams began his career with CSP in 1998 as a trooper, His performance evaluations were consistently exceptional. He received several promotions over the next twelve years, ultimately becoming a captain. Throughout his tenure, Williams kept his sexual orientation secret, even to the point of displaying a- photograph of a supposed gm]friend on his desk.

T7 But sfter an involuntary transfer to a desk position that he did not "care for," Williams resigned in :2010. Before leaving, according to Williams, Major James Colley-his then immediate supervisor-assured him that if he returned to the force within a year, the reapplication process would be streamlined such that Williams would not have to undergo a polygraph examination and a full background check. '

T8 Three months later, Williams applfed for reinstatement. James Wolfinbarger, the new chief, required Williams to complete a full background check and take a polygraph examination. This requirement was a change in policy from that of Wolfinbarger’s predecessor.

19 During the pre-polygraph interview, Williams made two disclosures to examiner Sergeant Dean Paxton that became signifi-cants

{10 First, Williams described having once inadvertently viewed child pornography on an adult pornography website. When he realized that some of the actors were children, he explained that he had clicked out of the video and reported the v1de0 to the website administrator.

« 11 Second, Williams revealed that a massage in Thailand in 2006 "ended in sexual contact." Paxton asked Willams whether the "masseuse" was male or female; Williams responded male. CSP's polygraph policies prohibited asking questions to elicit an examinee's sexual qrientation.

[ 12 Williams testified that revealing information related to his sexual orientation during this interview heightened his anxiety during 'the examination, When Paxton asked whether Williams was concealing any unlawful sexual conduct, and he responded "no," the polygraph showed a "significant reaction," the highest Paxton had ever seen. Based on this. reaction, Paxton concluded that Williams had failed the polygraph.

*767$13 Wolfinbarger soon learned - about Williams' admissions during the interview and failed examination. He instructed Captain Dan Elder to find out whether CSP could deny reinstatement based solely on the polygraph results. Elder delegated this assignment to Sergeant Tim Keeton: After doing some research, Keeton told Elder that CSP could deny reinstatement based only on the polygraph results, although he also knew that denying reinstatement on thls basis was not the best practice,

1 14 Elder reported Keeton's conclusion to Wolfinbarger. Lieutenant Colonel Scott Hernandez, in consultation with Wolfinbar-ger, decided not to reinstate Williams. : Col-ley then told Williams that he would not be reinstated. Due to an intervening holiday and a furlough day, the process from examination to decision took about three business days.

II. Arbitrary or Capricious Claim

T 15 CSP first contends the Board did not have authority to review Williams' claim that CSP acted arbitrarily or capriciously in declining to reinstate him. Alternatively, CSP contends the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the ALJ's conclusion of an arbitrary or capricious hiring decision. Because we agree with CSP's first contention, its second contention is moot.

A. Preservation and Standard of Review

16 The partles agree that this issue is preserved.

Appellate courts review an agency's determination of its own jurisdiction de novo,. Hawes v. Colo. Div. of Ins., 65 P.3d 1008, 1015 (Colo.2008). Still, they generally defer to the agency's reasonable interpretations of its own statutes. Gessler v. Colo. Common Cause, 2014 CO 44, ¶ 7, 327 P.3d 232. Specifically, if the statute is silent or ambiguous, "courts must consider whether the agency's regulation is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Xerox Corp. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 87 P.3d 189, 192 (Colo.App.2008). But an appellate court does not defer to an agency interpretation that violates the plain language of the statute or the Genersl Assembly's intent. Youngs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2012 COA 85M, 22, 297 P.3d 964. '

~B. “Law

1. Comparing Board and . Director Authority

118 The Board has authority to review adverse actions involving state employees. See Colo. Const. art. XII, § 138) ("Iplersons in the personnel system of the state"). But its power to review nonemploy-gee appointment decisions arises from a single statute: section' 24-50-125.8, C.R.S. 2015 ("[aln applicant or eniployee"). This 'section permits the Board to review a "discriminatory or unfair employment practice[ |" as defined in CADA. Id. But it does not empower the Board to consider a nonemployee's claim of arbitrary or capricious action. See id. '

119 By contrast, the State Personnel Director (Director) has express statutory authority to review an appeal from "[alny person," which would include nonemployees. § 24-50-112.5(4)(a), C.R.S. 2015, And seetion 24-50-112.5(4)(b) grants the Director authority to overturn any action found to have been "arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law."

1 20 True enough, the Board has statutory authority to reverse or modify a determination by the Director should the Board conclude that either the action of the Director or that of the appointing authority whose action the Director reviewed was arbitrary or capricious. § 24-50-108(6), C.R.S. 2015.1 But the claim must be "appealable to the [Bloard pursuant to this article or the state constitu*768tion" for the Board to review it under section 24-50-108(6). Id.

T21 A close look at the statutory framework shows the possibility of two separate but parallel appeals-one directly to the Board from an allegedly discriminatory action by an appointing authority and one to the Director from an allegedly arbitrary or capricious action by an appointing authority. Bee Ch. 851, see. 15, § 24-50-112.5(4)(c) & (d), 2010 Colo. Sess. Laws 1626-27 (explaining that if any employee who has filed an appeal with the Director also files an appeal with the Board arising from the same action by an appointing authority, then the ninety-day period within which the Director must issue a written decision will be tolled until the Board's final decigion, if both appeals arise from the same action), Thus, "all complaints about the selection ... process not involving allegations of discrimination are to be filed with the director, while any claims of discrimination with respect to that process must be filed with the board or the civil rights division." Cunningham v. Dep't of Highways, 823 P.2d 1877, 1880 (Colo.App. 1991).

2. Statutory Construction Principles

{22 Appellate courts first look to the General Assembly's chosen language to discern the legislative intent. See Steedle v. Sereff, 167 P.3d 135, 140 (Colo.2007). The court must "give effect to the General Assembly's choice of wording." Colo. Dep't of Pers. v. Alexander, 970 P.2d 459, 465 (Colo.1998). When the language is plain, the court must apply the text as written and not foree or strain its interpretation. Welby Gardens Co. v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Equalization, 56 P.3d 1121, 1123 (Colo.App.2002), aff'd, 71 P.3d 992 (Colo.2003).

C. The ALJ's Determination

' 1283 The ALJ concluded that she had authority to review Williams' claim that CSP had acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

«[ 24 In the initial order, she first explained that section 24-50-125.9-permitting a non-employee, like Williams, to appeal a discriminatory action to the Board-does not "place a limit on the Board's commensurate jurisdiction under § 24-50-103(6)" Thus, according to the ALJ, when the Board reviews allegedly discriminatory actions under seetion 24-50-125.8, "there is a rebuttable presumption that the Board may [also] reverse or modify the action if it finds it to have [also] been arbitrary [or] capricious[.]" Next, the ALJ interpreted the tolling provisions to permit applicants to select their appellate forum. Finally, the ALJ concluded that requiring a nonemployee to pursue two separate appeals-an arbitrary or capricious claim to the Director and a discrimination claim to the Board-produced. an "untenable result" in terms of judicial economy.

- 1 25 The Board affirmed the ALJ's conclusion without additional analysis.

«-D. Application

1. Statutory Construction

$26 Although the Board lacks express authority to review a nonemployee's claim that the appointing authority was arbitrary or capricious, it argues that reading the plain language of several provisions together at least implies this power. The applicable language of section 24-50-108(6)-permitting the Board to reverse arbitrary or capricious actions if the. claim was "appealable to the board"-and section 24-50-125.3-permitting the Board to review nonemployee discrimination claims-stems from the same bill. See Ch, 194, see. 2, § 24-50-108(6), 1984 Colo. Sess. Laws 705 (amending section 24-50-108(6)); Ch. 194, see. 11, § 24-50-125.8, 1984 Colo, Sess. Laws 712-13 (adding section 24-50-125.8). For this reason, the Board asserts that we should construe these provisions together, See Buck v. Dist. Court, 199 Colo. 344, 347-48, 608 P.2d 350, 352 (1980) (two statutes, enacted contemporaneously, should be construed together).

[27 The result, according to the Board, is that because it may review appeals by non-employees under section 24-50-125.3, those claims are "appealable to the board" as required by section 24-50-108(8), and thus they can be reviewed under the "arbitrary [orl capricious" language in the latter section, The Board also points out that when the *769General Assembly enacted section 24-50-125.3, it did not limit the Board's jurisdiction in section 24-50-108(6).

128 But this analysis ignores the difference in the scope of the Board's review between section 24-50-125.8 and section 24-50-108(6). On the one hand, section 24-50-125.3 empowers the Board to review appeals-including those by nonemployees-for allegedly discriminatory action. Thus, only discrimination claims are "appealable to the board" under section 24-50-108(6). On the other hand, section 24-50-108(6) empowers the Board to review such appealable claims for, as relevant here, action that is "arbitrary [or] capricious." But the Board does not explain, nor can we discern, how section 24-50-108(6) could expand its review for discriminatory action into a review for arbitrary or capri-clous action.

129 Although section 24-84-8301, C.R.S.2015, does not define discrimination, the term has a well-understood meaning in the employment context, Seq, eg., Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 682 n. 22, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983) (discrimination means "less favorable" treatment on a statutorily prohibited basis). In contrast, an administrative ageney has acted arbitrarily or capriciously where "no substantial evidence exists in the record to support the agency's decision." Gessler v. Grossman, 2015 COA 62, ¶ 39, 2015 WL 2190666. "

30 The Board's interpretation would conflate these fundamentally different inquiries. This interpretation would leave one to wonder whether the Board could uphold an appointing authority's action for insufficient evidence of less favorable treatment, but then overturn the action because the evidence showed that the appointing authority had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. _.

131 No provision precludes Board review of a nonemployee's claim that the appointing authority acted arbitrarily or eapri-clously. But section 24-50-112.5(4)(a)-(b) grants the Director express authority to do just that, And "when the [General Assembly] includes a provision in one statute, but omits that provision from another similar statute, the omission is evidence of its intent." Deutsch v. Kalcevic, 140 P.3d 340, 342 (Colo.App.2006). Thus, we should not infer that the General Assembly intended to implicitly provide the Board with the same authority that it expressly provided to, the Director,

32 To be sure, where an appointing authority's action is challenged on multiple grounds, the Board and the Director may have overlapping appellate authority in some respects. See § 24-50-112.5(4)(c)-(d) . (de-seribing appellate process if complainant files appeals with both the Director and the Board). But the General Assembly did not merge the Director's authority into that of the Board. To do so-as the Board urges-would add words to these statutes. This an appellate court cannot do. See Bedee v. Am. Med. Response of Colo., 2015 COK 128, ¶ 39, 361 P.3d 1083.

183 As well, interpreting the statutory framework as the ALJ did-permitting aggrieved nonemployees to select their forum for claims alleging arbitrary or capricious getion-impermissibly stretches the text in another way. Sections 24-50-112.5(4)(c) and. (d)-tolling the time in which the Director must issue a decision until the Board has reached a final decision-assume that even if the aggrieved applicant appealed to the Board, the Director could still have a question to resolve, And as relevant here, that question could be the merits of a nonemploy-ee's claim the appointing authority was arbitrary or capricious, because the Director has express authority to consider such a claim, Ree § 24-50-112.5(4)(b).

184 As for judicial economy, policy considerations are subordinate to giving ef-feet to unambiguous statutory language. See Swieckowski by Swieckowski v. City of Ft. Collins, 934 P.2d 1380, 1387 (Colo.1997) ("[ are constrained by limiting principles of judicial review to interpret statutory language consistently with the intent of the General Assembly and with the plain meaning of the words chosen by this body when it enacts a statute. We may not substitute our view of public policy for that of the General Assembly."); People in the Interest of DRW, 91 P.3d 458, 458 (Colo.App.2004) *770("We reject policy considerations in favor of the plain language of the statute."), And by tolling the Director's deadline until "final agency action'" by the Board, the statute recognizes that a redundant decision by the Director might be avoidable if both appeals arose from the same appointing authonty’s action,

. T35 Undaunted, the Board points out that section 24-50-112.5(4)(e) permits "any person" to file an appeal to the Board after the Director's final decision. The Board argues that this Section negates the Director's exclusive authority over claims alleging arbitrariness or capriciousness when discrimination is also alleged. But this section became effective after the ALJ had determined that she had authority to review Williams' claim CSP acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Ch. 260, see. 9, § 24-50-112.5(4)(e), 2012 Colo. Sess. Laws 1850 (effective January 1, 2018). Thus, it does not illuminate. interpretation of the statutes that existed during Williams' administrative proceedings. See Boulder Med. Ctr. v. Moore, 651 P.2d 464, 466 (Colo.App.1982) ("[Blecause this statute was not in effect at the time of Moore's termination and at the time of trial, and because retrospective application is forbidden in the absence of plain language, this section does not apply here.").

2. Deference

186 Recall that when a statute “1s silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, courts must. consider whether the agency's regulation is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Xerox Corp., 87 P.3d at 192. An ambiguous statute is one "fairly susceptible of more than one interpretation." Miller v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 985 P.2d 94, 96 (Colo.App.1999).

f 37 In contrast, here the statutory scheme unambiguously. grants the Director authority over claims of an arbitrary or capricious action. It does not grant that same authority to the Board. As well, the statutes are not silent 'on the Board's authority to review nonemployee claims: the Board may review such claims alleging discrimination or other unfair employment practices "as defined in part 4 of article 24-50-125.8.

I 38 Finally, the Board's rules do not grant it authority to consider claims alleging arbitrary or capricious action. Rule 8-42 says that claims with no allegations of discrimination shall be filed with the Director. Dep't of Pers. & Admin,. Rule 8-42, 4 Code Colo. Regs. § 801-1 (2011). But the then-applicable Rule 846(A) gave the Board discretion to grant a hearing in claims alleging discrimination "where there is no mandatory right to a hearing, including discrimination in the selection and examination process[.]" Dep't of Pers. & Admin,. Rule 846(A), 4 Code Colo. Regs. § 801-1 (2011).

' (89 Given all this, we conclude that the Board lacked authority to review Williams' claim CSP acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

E. Remand

€40 Section 24-50-112.5(4)(a) grants an aggrieved applicant ten days to appeal an appointing. authority's decision to the Director. But the Board points out-and CSP does not dispute-that this time "does not run if the notice did not properly advise the employee of his or her right to appeal." Renteria v. Colo. State Dep't of Pers., 811 P.2d 797 802 (Colo.1991); see also Cunningham, 823 P.2d at 1380.

141 CSP's letter notifying Williams that he would not be reinstated failed to explain Williams' right to appeal to the Director, Thus, we remand Williams' claim CSP acted arbitrarily or capriciously to the Board for referral to the Director, who may consider whether the claim has been tolled by lack of notice. If the Director so' concludes,. then the Director may consider the merits of the claim. However, because the Board set aside the refusal to reinstate as discriminatory and we are upholding its decision, the Director may instead conclude that Williams' claim that CSP acted arbitrarily or capriciously has become moot.

III. Discrimination

€42 CSP next contends the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the ALJ's conclusion that CSP discriminated against Williams based on his sexual orientation, We discern ample record support to affirm the ALJ's conclusion. -

*771A. Preservation and Standard of Review ;

443 Williams agrees that CSP fire'seryed this contentlon

$44 A reviewing court W111 not reverse an administrative agency's décision "unless the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, made a determination that is unsupported by the evidence and the record, erroneously interpreted the law, or exceeded its constitutional or statutory authority." Colo. Citizens for Ethics in Gov't v. Comm. for the Am. Dream, 187 P.3d 1207, 1214 (Colo.App.2008).

- B. Law

145 Under CADA, a prima facie discrimination case requires proof that (1) the employee belongs to a protected class; (2) the employee was qualified; (83) despite being qualified, the employee suffered adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination based on membership in the protected class. St. Croix v. Univ. of Colo.Health Sci. Cir, 166 P.3d 230, 236 (Colo.App.2007); see also Colo. Civil Rights Comm'n v. Big O Tires, Inc 940 P.2d 397 400 (Colo.1997).

146 If the employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to "articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision." Sf Croix 166 P.3d at 286; see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-083, 98 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1978) (describing burden shifting analysis under Title VII).2 Then if the employer provides a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, the employee must show that the employer's reason was a pretext for discrimination. St Croix 166 P.3d at 236 (citing Big O Tires, Inc., 940 P.2d at 401).

147 Over the ensuing decades, several refinements of the McDonnell Douglas paradigm have emerged. As relevant here, where the plaintiff cannot show that the deci-sionmaker acted with animus against members of a protected group, intentional discrimination may still be proven under the "cat's paw" theory, Thomas v. Berry Plastics Corp., 808 F.3d 510, 514 (10th Cir.2018) (Title VII). This theory.allows the employee to make a prima facie case with evidence that "a biased subordinate who lacked decision-making power used the formal decisionmaker as a dupe in a deliberate scheme to bring about an adverse employment action." Id. at 515.

C. Application

148 After making detailed findings, the ALJ concluded that Williams had established all four prongs of the prima facie case for intentional discrimination and that CSP's proffered reasons for denying reinstatement were pretextual, The ALJ also concluded that Williams had proven CSP discriminated under the cat's paw theory. CSP disputes each of these conclusions, but focuses primarily on the fourth prong and the ALJ's reliance on the cat's paw theory.

1, Cireumstances Giving Rise to an Inference of Intentional Discrimination

149 To establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case, the employee need not have conclusive proof-such as an admission-that the employer intentionally discriminated. See Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092, 1101 (10th Cir.2005) (describing prima facie burden as "de minimis" under Title VII). Rather, "the fourth element of a prima facie case is a flexible one that can be satisfied differently in varying scenarios." Id. at 1100, For example, sufficient evidence may show that the employer engaged in actions or remarks which "could be viewed as reflecting & discriminatory animus." Id. at 1101 (quoting Chertkova v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81, 91 (24 Cir,1996) (Title VII)). And "the timing or sequence of events leading to plaintiffs [adverse hiring result]" can Also give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination. Id. (quotlng Chertkova, 92 F.3d at 91).

*772T50 The ALJ relied on the following factual findings in concluding that CSPs actions gave rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.

51 First, Williams' employment record at CSP had been exemplary, His job performance evaluations were consistently "exceptional," and he climbed the ranks from trooper to captain in fewer than seven years.

T52 Second, despite Williams' impeccable record, CSP's decision to refuse reinstate ment was swift, At most, three business days passed between the failed polygraph examination and the final decision. But the ALJ found that "[CSP] offered no explanation for expediting the process of denying reinstatement."

T 53 Third, when Williams applied for reinstatement, Keeton, Elder, Hernandez! and Wolfinbarger all had some reasons to believe that Williams was gay. In April 2009, two of Williams' subordinates-Corporal Shawn Wyeoff and Sergeant Pat Mullenburg-told Williams that Sergeant Darryl Brown had made disparaging comments about Williams' sexuality. Williams reported the incident to Elder. Keeton investigated the complaint, Hernandez performed a "final review" of Elder's report, and Wolfinbarger was listed as a recipient of the complaint and Keeton's report. And after Williams sought reinstate ment, both Keeton and Elder observed 'the pre-polygraph interview in which Williams told the examiner that while in Thailand he had sexual contact with a man. They also both observed the examination.

- {54 The manner in which Elder handled the complaint about Brown also permits an inference of animus against gay men. Wy-coff explained that after he and Mullenburg reported Brown's comments regarding Williams, Wyeoff was "drilled pretty hard" and that he was made to feel that he had done something wrong. Wyeoff concluded that he would decline to report "an anti-gay remark" again based on how he was treated.

155 Because the record supports these findings, we agree with the ALJ that they permit the inference that CSP intentionally discriminated against Williams based on his sexual orientation. Although CSP correctly ofuts out that Williams did not present direct evidence of discriminatory intent, indirect proof suffices because discrimination "is as sly as it is insidious. It lives in inference, tone, and gesture as much as in action." Valdez v. People, 966 P.2d 587, 599 (Colo.1998) (Kourlis, J., dissenting); see also Bodaghi v. Dep't of Nat, Res., 995 P.2d 288, 296 (Colo.2000) (noting that employees must often rely on indirect evidence of discrimination because "direct evidence of discrimination is rare").

2. Pretext

156 Where an employer responds to an employee's prima facie case with evidence of a legitimate, nondiscerimina-tory reason for its action, showing that the reason was pretextual does "not require a plaintiff to offer any direct evidence of actual discrimination." Timmerman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 483 F.3d 1106, 1113 (10th Instead, the employee may show pretext based on “Weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions" in the employer's explanation. Id. (quoting Morgan v. Hilti Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir.1997)). For example, the timing and sequence of events leading up to the adverse action, as well as post-hoc justifications, can be evidence of pretext. Plotke, 405 F.3d at 1108, 1105.

T57 CSP presented evidence of the following nondiscriminatory reasons for having denied reinstatement: Williams' "significant reaction" to the polygraph question about illegal sexual conduct, his admitted sexual contact in Thailand, and his inadvertently having viewed child pornography. But the ALJ concluded that these reasons were merely a pretext for intentional discrimination. The record includes evidence of the following facts, which support this conclusion.

a. Procedural Irregularities and Disparate Treatment

158 Requiring Williams to take the polygraph examination was a departure from the previous chief's policy. Before Williams resigned, Colley told him that he would not need to take a polygraph if he applied for reinstatement within a year. But when Col-*773ley called Williams to tell him he would not be reinstated and Williams pointed out their previous conversation about reinstatement, Colley said only that the requirements for reinstatement were up to the new chief.

59 The observation by Keeton and Elder of Williams' polygraph examination was atypical, Elder testified that he could not remember another time that both he and Kee-ton had observed an examination together. And while Keeton recalled having previously observed examinations with Elder, the ALJ found that his testimony was not credible.

160 As well, the pre-polygraph interview violated CSP policies that prohibit examiners from formulating questions to elicit the ex-aminee's sexual orientation,. Despite this policy, after Williams told Paxton that while in Thailand he had a sexual encounter during a massage, Paxton asked the gender of the "masseuse." Paxton testified that he could not recall another polygraph examination in which he had asked about the gender of a sexual partner. And after learning the gender, Paxton elicited further details about the sexual encounter. Yet, following the examination, neither Elder nor Keeton addressed with Paxton the impropriety of this question or his departure from policy.

{61 CSP's response to Willams failing the polygraph examination was inconsistent with its past practices. The record shows that at least three other CSP applicants or reinstatement candidates failed polygraph examinations between January 12, 2009, and June 14, 2010. But CSP still hired them. And CSP does not highlight any differences between Williams and these candidates other than that Williams had a more "significant reaction" during the polygraph examination.

162 In any event, this strong reaction is consistent with Williams' letter to Wolfinbar-ger explaining that after the pre-polygraph question disclosed the sex of the masseur, the test question about "concealing any unlawful sexual conduct" left him extremely nervous and anxious, given his sexual orientation.

63 Yet despite this explanation, the ree-ord also shows that CSP never even considered retesting Williams. But testimony showed that another former trooper who had sought reinstatement failed a polygraph, was retested, and then was reinstated. CSP counters that Williams did not provide evidence of any applicants who were treated more favorably concerning their polygraphs and were similarly situated to him. But the other applicants were similar to Williams in that they all failed a polygraph However, that failed polygraph was not fatal for them, it was fatal for Williams.

' b. Timing and Sequence

T 64 The timing of CSP's decision is also suspect. Following the polygraph examination, Elder was charged with determining whether CSP could deny Williams reinstatement based solely on the results, And at Wolfinbarger's direction, the mvest1gat10n was to be expedited.

1 65 Elder delegated this research to Kee-ton, who took no notes on his inquiries. Kee-ton testified that he read policies for police departments in Austin, Texas, and Los Ange-les, California; neither department would deny reinstatement based solely on a polygraph examination. But Keeton did not remember providing copies of these policies to Elder. Paxton testified to having told Kee-ton best practice was not to base hiring decisions solely on a polygraph examination, and Paxton recalled that Keeton agreed with him. Keeton did not contact the Colorado Attorney General's Office during the investigation, nor did he seek input from human resources. | ' '

€66 Despite all this, Keeton told Elder that CSP could decline to reinstate Williams based on one district court case from Colorado Springs and his conversation with an attorney in that case. After having received Keeton's conclusion, Elder, too, did not contact the Colorado Attorney General's Office or human resources.

c. Post-Hoc Justifications

T 67 Colley told Williams only that because he had failed the polygraph, CSP would not reinstate him. During litigation, however, Wolfinbarger justified the decision based on all of the facts "in totality," including the "act of prostitution" in Thailand and Williams *774having viewed child pornography. Yet, in the 'pfe-polygraph examination, after Williams disclosed the inadvertent child pornography viewing, Paxton diminished the event, stating "everybody has seen pom ' and “no problem."

i 68 Wolfinbarger and Hernandez also testified that they feared Williams would view pornography in his patrol car if left alone, a justification the ALJ found not credible. And Hernandez noted Williams' hesitancy to take the polygraph examination. But Colley had told Williams that he would not have to be polygraphed.

€69 In sum; we conclude that the record supports the ALJ's determination of pretext.

8. Cat's Paw/Subordinate Biabf Liability .

170 Recall that under the cat's paw theory, an employer may be liable-even if the decisionmakers lacked any discriminatory intent-where they relied solely on the reports or recommendations of a biased subordinate. See EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cols Bottling Co., 450 F.3d 476, 485 (10th Cir.2006). But the subordxnate must do more than just influence or provide input into the‘ decision-making process. Id. at 487. Rather, "the isgue is whether the biased subordinate's dis-cmmmatory reports, recommendation, or other actions caused the adverse employment action." (Id. (emphasis added) Thus, .an employer can "avoid liability by conductmg an independent investigation of the allegations against an employee." Id. at 488.

171. Hernandez and Wolfinbarger made the decision not to reinstate Williams. They both denied believing that Williams was gay during the reinstatement process. As explained above, the record calls their denial into question because both of them had access to Williams' complaint and the accompanying investigation regarding Brown's derogatory statements about Williams' sexuality.

T72 But even if Wolfinbarger and Hernandez did not know or have reason to suspect that Williams was gay during the reinstatement process, they both relied on the results of the expedited investigation by Elder and Keeton. Neither Wolfinbarger nor Hernandez sought independent confirmation that CSP could deny reinstatement based solely on the results of a polygraph. And like Keeton and Elder, neither of them contacted human resources or the Attorney General's office to inquire whether CSP could do so. Nor did either Wolfinbarger or Hernandez discuss the results of the polygraph examination with Williams before deciding. not to reinstate him.

T73 For these reasons, the record shows that they accepted the conclusions of biased subordinates. Thus, the ALJ properly concluded that CSP is liable under the cat's paw theory of liability

IV. 'Front Pay

174 In her 2012 initial order, the ALJ construed the then-applicable remedies section of CADA as permitting a front pay award.3 'The Board upheld thls determination Without any "analysis. '

1175 CSP. contends former secmon 24-84-405 did not authorize the Board to award front pay. Alternatively, CSP contends the front pay awarded was excessive. Because we agree with the first contention, we set aside the front pay award, rendering the alternative contention moot.

A. Preservation and Standard of Review

176 To begin, Williams and the Board argue that. we should not address CSP's principal argument because it is un-preserved. CSP responds that an agency's statutory authority to order a remedy is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, which cannot be waived. Also, CSP asserts that it preserved this argument by raising it before the ALJ on remand. We agree with CSP on both grounds.

T77 Administrative agencies' an-thority extends only so far as "determined and limited by the statutes by which they are created." Colo. Div. of Emp't & Training, *775Dep't of Labor & Emp't v. Indus. Comm'n, 665 P.2d 631, 633 (Colo.App.1983). 'The statutes that define an agency's authority are juridiction.4 Speer v. Kourlis, 935 P.2d 43, 48 (Colo.App.1996), And "the question of their applicability may be raised at any time." Id.; see also FW. Woolworth Co. w. D.C. Bd. of Appeals & Review, 519 A.2d 7183, 71617 (D.C. 1990); SBC Enters., Inc. v. City of S. Burlington Liquor Control Comm'n, 166 Vt. 79, 689 A.2d 427, 429 (Vt.1996). Therefore, we conclude that CSPs statutory front pay argument is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, which cannot be waived.

178 CSP also preserved this claim under its alternative analysis. Section 24-4~-105(14)(c), C.R.S8. 2015, states that "[flailure to file the exceptions ... shall result in a waiver of the right to judicial review of the final order of such agency, unless that portion of such order subject to exception is different from the content of the imitial decision." (Emphasis added.) On remand to the ALJ to determine remedies, CSP argued that the Board lacked authority to award front pay. The amended order included the amount of front pay awarded, making it "different from the content of the [ALJ's] initial decision." Thus, CSP 'preserved this clsim when it raised the statutory authority issue on appeal to the Board of the ALJ's remedles decision.

1T 79 This conclusion aligns with the principle that final judgments for purposes of appeal are those that "end[ ] the particular action in which it is entered, leaving nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties involved in the proceeding." Harding Gloss Co., Inc. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123, 1125 n. 2 (Colo.1982) (citation omitted); see also § 18-4-102(1), C.R.S. 2015, "[Aln order or judgment establishing liability without determining damages is not final or appealable" Grand Cty, Custom Homebuilding, LLC v. Bell, 148 P.3d 398, 400 (Colo.App.2006). -

T80 The ALJ's initial order was not final because it did not determine damages, and CSP properly preserved its claim on appeal by raising it on remand to the ALJ. Thus, CSP. preserved its claim by raising it before the ALJ on remand and then with the Board on appeal of the remedies decision. -

T81 The same principles of review and deference apply here as are discussed in Part ILA, An action exceeding an agency's statutory power must be reversed § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. 2015. i

B. Merits

1. Law

1182 CADA authorlzes remedles for employees aggrieved by workplace discrimination. The Board applies the remed1es seetion of, CADA. 'See generally § 24-84-405, C.R.S. 2015 (hstmg remedial measures); § 24-50-125.8 (describing Board's authority to hear appeals under CADA). When the ALJ issued her initial decision, section 24-34-405 provided:

[The commission may order ... affirmative action regarding: Back pay;. hiring, reinstatement, or upgrading of employees, with or without back pay; the referring of applicants for employment by any respondent labor organization; the admission to or continuation in enrollment in an apprenticeship program, on-the-job training program, or a vocational school; the posting of notices; and the making of reports as to the manner of compliance.

Ch. 207, see. 7, § 24-34-405, 1989 Colo Sess. Laws 1042.

183 In, 2018, the General Assembly amended. CADA to provide additional remedies, including front pay awards. See Ch. 168, see, 1, § 24-84-405, 2018 Colp. Sess. Laws 549; see also § 24-84-405(2)(a)(Il) ("[The commission or the court may order affirmative relief ... including ... [front payl.]"). But because the amendment became effective in 2015, see 2018 Colo. Sess.

*776Laws at 656, to. resolve whether front pay was available to Williams, we must construe former section 24-34-406,

¶ 84 We apply the same general principles of interpretation discussed in Part II above. •Then, if-this language is ambiguous, a court “may look to pertinent legislative history to ascertain the General Assembly’s, intent.” Lang v. Colo. Mental Health Inst in Pueblo, 44 P.3d 262, 264 (Colo.App.2001).

2. Application

a. Statutory Language

¶85 The former remedies section does not address front pay. Everyone would agree that when interpreting a statute, “we must accept the General Assenibly’s choice of language and not add or imply words that simply are not there.” People v. Benavidez, 222 P.3d 391, 393-94 (Colo.App.2009). Two more specific principles of statutory interpretation favor applying this general limitation here.

¶ 86 First, because the statute lists several other remedies—alb common to other statutes prohibiting, employment discrimination—the lack of a reference to front pay does not “prevent!,] ... a reasonable application of the statute,” In re 2000-2001 Diet. Grand Jury, 97 P.3d 921, 924 (Colo.2004). Rather, we may infer that the “inclusion of certain items implies the exclusion of others.” Cain v. People, 2014 CO 49, ¶ 13, 327 P.3d 249 (citation omitted); see also Youren v. Tintic Sch. Dist., 343 F.3d 1296, 1308 (10th Cir.2003) (“[T]he state legislature failed to mention punitive damages ... in a'law that authorized various specific forms 'of relief. ... We are therefore unwilling to read punitive damages into a statute that does not expressly authorize them.”).

¶ 87 Second, the former remedies section authorizes reinstatement, which is the reciprocal remedy to front pay. See Bergerson v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health, 652 F.3d 277, 287 (2d Cir.2011) (“An award of front pay is an alternative to reinstatement where reinstatement is ‘inappropriate!.]’ ”) (citation omitted). Given this relationship, we also infer that “had the General Assembly wanted to [include front pay], it knew how to do so.”

Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 246 P.3d 651, 662 (Colo.2011); see also People v. Carrillo, 2013 COA 3, ¶ 19, 297 P.3d 1028 (“One would expect that this issue would be within the scope of the latter section— ”).

¶ 88 Thus, because the statutory structure evinces thé General Assembly’s intent to exclude front pay,' we reject the Board’s contrary intei’pretation. See, e.g., Rags Over the Ark. River, Inc. v. Colo. Parks & Wildlife Bd., 2015 COA 11M, ¶ 37, 360 P.3d 186 (declining to follow an agency’s interpretation because it was' “inconsistent with the regulation’s plain language.and is not entitled to deference”)..

¶ 89 True enough, the former remedies provision does not say that the listed remedies are exclusive, And on this basis, the dissent contends that the former remedies provision is ambiguous. But even accepting the dissent’s position, examining the legislative history leads to the same result: the former remedies section' did not permit front pay.

b. Legislative History

¶ 90 Under a predecessor to the former remedies section, a respondent employer could be required to take affirmative action, “including (but not limited to) hiring, reinstatement or up-grading of employees, with or without back pay—” Ch. 176, sec. 6, § 24-34-307(12), 1957 Colo. Sess. Laws 498 (emphasis added); see World Wide Constr. Seros,, Inc. v, Chapman, 683 P.2d 1198, 1200 (Colo.1984) (discussing the legislative history of section 24-34-307(12)). But when the General- Assembly repealed and re-enacted the remedies provision in 1979, it removed “including (but not limited to).” Ch. 239, sec. 3, § 24-34-405, 1979 Colo. Sess. Laws 932. The General Assembly’s removal of language “serves as a'statement of legislative intent that it did not wish to include such language.” Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs, 2014 CO 34, ¶ 20, 327 P.3d 891. Thus, this amendment further supports limiting CADA remedies to those listed.

¶ 91 Even so, the Board argues that the General Assembly expressly authorizing

*777front pay in 2013-more than two decades after the former section was last modified-shows that front pay has been available under CADA all along. See § 24-34-405(@2)(a)(II). This change, however, does not prove that the former version impliedly authorized front pay.

192 While an amendment may either clarify or change an existing law, "we presume that by amending the law the [General Assembly] has intended to change it." City of Colorado Springs v. Powell, 156 P.3d 461, 465 (Colo,2007).

1938 Colorado courts use a three-part analysis to determine whether this pré-sumption has been overcome. See Mesa Cty. Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Allen, 2012 COA 95, ¶ 10, 318 P.3d 46. First, the court considers whether the prior version of the statute was ambiguous; second, the court looks to the legislative history, including statements made by the bill's sponsors regarding its purpose; and third, the court considers the statute's plain language to determine if the General Assembly intended to clarify, not change, the statute. Id. at 16. But "even a clear indication of intent to clarify cannot dispositively establish the meaning of previous legislation." People v. Randell, 2012 COA 108, ¶ 18, 297 P.3d 989 (quoting Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Martin, 209 P.3d 185, 188 (Colo.2009)).

T 94 Applying the three-part analysis does not rebut the presumption that the General Assembly intended to change, rather than clarify, the remedies statute. See Mesa City., 19. Even if the statute is ambiguous under the first factor, which we have conceded for purposes of addressing the dissent, the legislative history under the second factor, described more fully below, does not overkome the presumption that the General Assembly intended to change the statute, not to clarify it. As for the third factor, nowhere does the amended statute say that it merely clarifies the previous remedies statute. See § 24-84-405(2)(a)(II).5

195 The Board points to statements by legislators about front pay already being an available remedy in connection with the 2018 amendments, and Williams defers to the Board's brief regarding the construction of the remedies statute. But "the views of one Congress as to the construction of a statute adopted many years before by another Congress have 'very little, if any, significance. " United States v. Sw. Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 170, 88 S.Ct. 1994, 20 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1968) (quoting Rainwater v. United States, 356 U.S. 590, 593, 78 S.Ct. 946, 2 L.Ed.2d 996 (1958)); see also Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 531 U.S. 159, 170, 121 S.Ct. 675, 148 L.Ed.2d 576 (2001) ("The relationship between the actions and inactions of the 95th Congress and the intent of the 92nd Congress in passing § 404(a) is also considerably attenuated."); Francen v. Colo.. Dep't of Revenue, 2012 COA 110, ¶ 32, 2012 WL 2581029 ("Each General Assembly is a distinct entity ..., and therefore what a later General Assembly thinks a statute does or should mean says little, if anything, about what the General Assembly that enacted it intended it to mean. "), affd, 2014 CO 54, 828 P.3d 111. -

'$96 Equally unavailing is the Board's emphasis on language of the bill summary accompanying the 2018 amendment. 'True enough, the summary states that the newly available remedies under CADA "would be in addition to the remedies allowed under current law, namely, front pay, back pay, interest on back pay, reinstatement or hiring, and other equitable relief that may be awarded." H.B. 13-1186, 69th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. § 1 (Colo. 2018) (emphasis added). But a bill summary "may or may not have been relied on in some measure by legislators in considering the bill[.]" Dep't of Transp. v. Gypsum Ranch Co., LLC, 244 P.3d 127, 131 (Colo. 2010) (rejecting a similar legislative intent argument based on bill heading, with language not reflected in the enacted legislation), And *778the bill summary is not part of the final text of the statute. See id.

197 Consequently, the legislative history does not establish that front pay was a remedy under CADA before the 2018 amendments went into effect.

c. Colorado Cases Interpreting Former Section 24-84-405

98 Likewise, statements about the predecessor remedies section in Colorado cases do not establish that it authorized front pay. At most, the cases are equivocal.

199 On the one hand, a d1v151on of this court has described the economic remedies available under CADA narrowly: "[Thhe only relevant remedies 'available for a statutory violation are reinstatement and back pay." Bigby v. Big 3 Supply Co., 937 P.2d 794, 801 (Colo.App.1996). Damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress are unavailable. Id.

{100 On the other hand, a different division has upheld a front pay award for a limited time while the appointing authority searched for a vacant position in which to reinstate the employee. Ward v. Dep't of Nat. Res., 216 P.3d 84, 97 (Colo,App.2008). Without addressing Bigby, the division explained that "the Board did not lack jurisdiction to order front pay until a vacant job was located " Id, But for two reasons, Ward is unpersuaswe

- T101 First, the division dld not examine., the language of section 24-84-405. Instead, it relied on Title VII; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-17 (2012); Black v. Waterman, 83 P.3d 1180, 1188 (Colo.App.2008); and the then-applicable Dep't of Pers. & Admin. Board Rule 9-6, 4 Code, Colo. Regs. $ 801-1 (2007).6 But these authorities are not informative: the Title VII remedy provisions differ from those in CADA, as discussed below; Black, 83 P.3d at 1138, involved Title VII, not CADA; and the then-applicable version of Board Rule 9-6-like the prior remedies section-did not mention front pay.7

[102 Second, the Ward front pay award was granted for only a limited period until the employee could be reinstated. Ward, 216 P.3d at 96. The division explained that "{pllacing Ward on leave without pay" while the employer searched for an appropriate vacant position "would not have redressed Ward's injury." Id. at 97. And reinstating Ward was impossible until a position could be found consistent with his disability. Id. Thus, the remedy in Ward represented a unique hybrid: both reinstatement and a provisional period of front pay. And the practical effect was to begin the employee's reinstatement-by paying 'him his regular salary-until the Appointing authority could find a suitable position.

1103 True enough, the legislature did not amend the former remedies statute in the wake of Word specifically to exclude front pay as a remedy. And the General Assembly amended other provisions of CADA between the decision in Ward in 2008 and the remedies amendments in 2018, while leaving the remedies section intact. But relying on legislative inaction to discern the General Assembly's intent "has been called a 'weak reed upon which to lean,' and a 'poor beacon to follow."" 2B Norman J. Singer & Sham-bie Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction § 49:9 (7th ed. 2008); see also Francen, M\ 81-85.

{104 For these reasons, to the extent Ward could be read as upholding a front pay award under former section 24-84-405, we find its analysis unconvincing. This is especially so because the prior division's analysis is limited. , See People in the Interest of A.R., *7792012 COA 195M, 1 24, 810 P.3d 1007 (deelining to follow another division where the holding was "without an accompanying analysis"); see also Lapponese v. Carts of Colo., Inc., 422 S.W.3d 396, 403 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) ("We are not persuaded by the limited analysis of the Missouri sales commission statutes by the Eighth Circuit, and decline to follow its interpretation of Section 407.918.").

d. Comparisbn 150 Other Civil - Rights Statutes

[ 105 While Williams and the Board analogize CADA to Title VII, this comparison misses the mark,. Courts have construed Title VII to permit front pay, although the statutory language does not expressly anthorize it. See Black, 83 P.3d at 1133 (citing McCue v. Kansas, 165 F.3d 784 (10th Cit. 1999); 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-5(g)(1) (2012) (permitting affirmative action "as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay ..., or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate"). '

1106 Even so, "Iwlhen conducting statutory interpretation, the Court 'must be careful not to apply rules applicable under one statute to a different statute without careful and critical examination." Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 557 U.8. 167, 174, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009) (quoting Fed, Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 398, 128 S.Ct. 1147, 170 L.Ed.2d 10 (2008)).

{107 And a closer look shows that the remedy provisions of CADA differ from those of Title VII. Title VII permits a broad range of remedies, including "such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees ... or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropri- - ate." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1) (emphasis added). The General Assembly did not grant Colorado courts this same power to fashion remedies under the former version of CADA. Instead, it listed specific remedies, including "Back pay; hiring, reinstatement, or upgrading of employees, .with or without back pay." 1989 Colo. Sess. Laws at 1042. And more importantly, as discussed above, the CADA analogue to Title VII's expansive language-"may include, but is not limited to"-was removed from the predecessor seetion in 1979. 1979 Colo. Sess. Laws at 982.

1108 To be sure, our supreme court has stated that remedies for violating civil rights statutes are "equitable in nature." City of Colorado Springs v. Conners, 993 P.2d 1167, 1170 (Colo.2000) (referring to remedies listed section 24-84-405). But the court added that such remedies "are aimed at eliminating workplace discrimination, not compensating individuals for their particular injuries arising -from violations." Id. at 1175 (emphasis added); see also Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 2015 COA 115, ¶ 109, 2015 WL 4760458 ("(Individual remedies are 'merely secondary and incidental to- CADA's primary purpose of eradicating discriminatory practices.") (citation omitted). And the supreme court has also said that CADA "permits but does not require an award of back pay and does not authorize the [Colorado Civil Rights Commission] to award damages that might otherwise be. available in a. common law action.". Brooke v. Rest, Servs., Inc., 906 P.2d 66, 69 (Colo,1995).8

€ 109 With only this much for guidance, we cannot conclude that our supreme court has resolved the front pay question before us.

T 110 In the end, we conclude that former section 24-84-405 did not authorize front pay. Thus, because the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding this remedy, this portion of the Board's order must be reversed.

[111 However, the Board may have affirmed the ALJ's conclusion that reinstatement was not feasible because it could make Williams whole by also affirming the front pay award. Because the Board might view reinstatement differently if front pay was not available, at oral argument the parties were asked for their positions on a limited remand to allow the Board to reconsider reinstate ment. No party objected. Therefore, on remand the Board may consider ordering *780reinstatement. In its sole discretion, the Board may allow the parties to present further argument on this issue.

V. Attorney Fees

{112 Finally, CSP contends the Board's attorney fees award to Williams is unsupported by substantial evidence, although it does not contest the amount of the award. We discern sufficient record support and therefore affirm the award.

A. Preservation and Standard of Review

11113 To begin, Williams argues that CSP failed to preserve its attorney fees challenge because it did not raise this contention with the Board in its appeal of the initial order. Thus, as Williams argued concerning front pay, we should decline to reach the merits of CSP's contention. Applying part of our rationale for concluding that the front pay issue was preserved, we also conclude that CSP preserved its contention on attorney fees. to y

{ 114 The ALJ awarded Williams attorney fees and costs in her initial decision but did not determine the amount. The Board affirmed the award and remanded for the ALJ to set an amount,. Because an amount was not determined initially, the attorney fees decision was not final, Axtell v. Park Sch. Dist. R-3, 962 P.2d 319, 322 (Colo. App.1998) ("[The order granting attorney fees does not determine the amount awarded. Thus, that portion of the judgment is not final until the amount of fees is set by the trial court."),

I 115 Thus, CSP. was not required to challenge the attorney fees award when it appealed the ALJ's initial decision to. the Board. And it did so when appealing the remedies decision.

1116 A reviewing court will affirm an administrative tribunal's award of attorney fees if the award is warranted by eviden-tiary findings and has a reasonable basis in the law. Renteria v. Dep't of Labor & Emp't, 907 P.2d 619, 623 (Colo.App.1994).

B. Law

1117 Section 24-50-125.5(1), C.R.S. 2015, permits an award of attorney fees and costs to an aggrieved employee if the personnel action was "instituted frivolously, in bad faith, maliciously, or as a means of harassment or was otherwise groundless{.]" "Bad faith" includes arbitrary, vexatious, abusive, or stubbornly litigious conduct. Mayberry v. Univ. of Colo. Health Sci. Ctr., 737 P.2d 427, 429-80 (Colo.App.1987) (quoting W. United Realty v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063, 1069 (Colo.1984)). Bad faith also may encompass conduct that is disrespectful of truth and accuracy. Id.

I 118 In Halverstadt v. Department of Corections, 911 P.2d 654, 660 (Colo.App.1995), the division explained that the employer did not act in bad faith because it relied on interpretations of applicable statutes and rules in making its determination. Id. And the employer's determinations had a "reasonable basis," precluding a finding of bad faith. Id. Similarly, in Sutton v. University of Southern Colorado, 870 P.2d 650, 652, 655 (Colo.App.1994), the division concluded that an employer's decision was not in bad faith because the employer asked for and received an opinion from the Attorney General that its actions were proper. Thus, this decision also had a reasonable basis. See id. at 655.

4 119 In contrast, the employer's actions in Ehrle v. Department of Admimistration, 844 P.2d 1267, 1272 (Colo.App.992), entitled the employee to attorney fees because the actions were in bad faith, There, the employer manipulated funding for an open position so that a recently laid-off employee-who was otherwise eligible for the position-would not be eligible to fill it. Id. at. 1269. Further, the court determined that the employer had "conducted a sham interview" with the employee, with no intention of reinstating him. Id. at 1270. These facts led to the division's conclusion the employer had acted in bad faith, Id.

C. Application

1120 The ALJ concluded that CSP's decisionmaking process lacked any reasonable basis and was made in bad faith. For the reasons discussed in Part III above, the record supports the findings underlying this conclusion. For example:

*781e CSP conducted an expedited investigation to determine whether it could deny Williams' reinstatement based on only the. polygraph results, despite his having been otherwise very well qualified for reinstatement, but could not explain why it proceeded so swiftly.

e CSP did not seek the advice of agency counsel or rely on written policies, as in Halverstadt and Sutton,.

® Instead, it relied on one district court case for support, despite Paxton's having told Keeton-and Keeton's agreement-that denying reinstatement based on fust the polygraph examination was not the best practice. __

{121 The ALJ also found that CSP's actions were disrespectful of truth and accuracy, another badge of bad faith, The record supports this finding, too: Williams was over-qualified for the reinstatement position of trooper, he had a reputation for integrity, and CSP hired or rehired other applicants although they had failed their initial polygraph examinations.

{122 In challenging the attorney fees award, CSP reiterates that it did not reinstate Williams because he admitted to having viewed child pornography and engaged in sexual conduct in such a manner that "appeared" to be prostitution, and the polygraph examination showed deception about undisclosed illegal sexual conduct But when Colley told Williams that he would not be reinstated, Colley only discussed the failed polygraph exam. And the ALJ held the other proffered reasons to be only post-hoe justifications showing a pretext for intentional discrimination, which we have con-eluded has sufficient record support.

{123 Thus, we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence showing CSP acted in bad faith and without any reasonable basis to affirm the attorney fees award.

CROSS-APPEAL >

VI. Anti-Gay Cfilture

124 In addition to concludmg that CSP had intentionally discriminated against Williams, the ALJ found that's CSP's "anti-gay culture" was "well docuniented in this case." But the Board rejected the anti-gay culture finding for two reasons: first, this finding was unnecessary to conclude that CSP had intentionally discriminated against Williams; and, second, the record did not support it. -

1125 On eross-appeal, Williams asks us to reverse. this aspect of the. Board's order and reinstate the finding. For two reasons, we decline to do so.

(126 First, the Board is correct that the ALJ's evidentiary finding of an anti-gay culture within CSP was unnecessary to uphold her ultimate conclusion that CSP intentionally discriminated against him. This is so because Williams did not seek relief on the basis of a pattern and practice of discrimination,9 nor was he required to show a pervasive culture of discrimination to succeed on his individual discrimination claim. Thus, insofar as this finding was unnecessary to the intentional discrimination conclusion that we have affirmed, we need not determine whether it is supported by the record. Seg, eg., Bernstein Family Ltd. P'ship v. Sovereign Partners, 66 A.D.3d 1, 883: NY.S.2d 201, 202-03 (N.Y.App.Div.2009) (explaining that an appellate court need not address arguments regarding unnecessary factual findings if other legal grounds on which the lower court relied were valid) In re TM.; 180 N.C.App. 589, 688 S$.E.2d 236, 240 (N.C.Ct. App.2006) (stating that when "ample other findings of fact support an adjudication ..., erroneous findings unnecessary to the determination do not constitute reversible error," and declining to address claim).

*7821127 Second, even if the record did support the ALJ's finding of an anti-gay culture, any error of the Board in setting this finding aside would be harmless because we have agreed with the ALJ and the Board that CSP mtentlonally discriminated against Williams. See Sheep Mountain Alliance v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 271 P.3d 597, 606 (Colo.App.2011) (errors in administrative proceedings will not require reversal unless the plaintiff can show prejudice).

VII. Conclusion

1 128 We reverse the front pay award and the arbitrary and capricious conclusion. We remand for the Board to refer the arbitrary or capricious claim to the Director and to reconsider reinstatement. In all other respects, we affirm the Board's decisions.