Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The petitioner, Lin Luo, sought review of a final order from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) that determined her ineligible for unemployment benefits from April 5, 2023, to June 28, 2023. Luo was terminated from her position at the American Chemical Society (ACS) and received post-termination payments under an Agreement and General Release. The OAH administrative law judge (ALJ) classified these payments as severance pay, which disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits. Luo argued that the payments were settlement payments for sexual harassment claims, not severance pay.The Department of Employment Services (DOES) initially found Luo ineligible for benefits for a slightly different period. Luo appealed to OAH, where the ALJ held a hearing and excluded Luo's evidence of her harassment claims, citing the parol evidence rule. The ALJ concluded that the Agreement's language unambiguously indicated the payments were severance pay, based on Luo's years of service and lack of advance notice of termination. The ALJ also noted that the Agreement included a release of claims against ACS and found that Luo signed the Agreement without fraud, duress, or mutual mistake.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the ALJ erred in not considering parol evidence regarding the nature of the payments. The court noted that the parol evidence rule does not preclude evidence showing that factual recitals in an agreement are untrue. The court concluded that the ALJ should have considered Luo's testimony and evidence about her harassment claims to determine the parties' intent regarding the payments. The court vacated the OAH orders and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider this evidence. View "Luo v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services" on Justia Law

Gerry Serrano, a police officer for the City of Santa Ana, took a leave of absence to serve as president of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association. The Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) determined that certain special pay additives Serrano received before and during his service as Association president could not be included in his pension. The Administrative Board of CalPERS and the Superior Court of Sacramento County affirmed the exclusion of most of these pay additives from Serrano’s pension. Serrano appealed, arguing that Government Code section 3558.8 mandates he cannot lose any compensation, including pensionable compensation, while serving as the Association president. He also challenged the specific exclusion of a confidential premium and holiday pay from his pensionable compensation.The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied Serrano’s petition for writ of administrative mandamus, which sought to vacate the Board’s decision and include all pay additives in his retirement calculation. Serrano then appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that section 3558.8 did not require the compensation Serrano earned as a police sergeant to be entirely pensionable while he served as Association president. The court concluded that the confidential premium was not pensionable because it constituted nonpensionable overtime and did not meet the regulatory definition for the confidentiality premium. Additionally, the court found that Serrano’s holiday pay was not pensionable because he was not required to work on holidays, as required by the relevant regulation. The court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the Retirement Law and the specific definitions and requirements for pensionable compensation under that law. View "Serrano v. Public Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law

In the early morning of November 1, 2019, a group of law enforcement officers, including Task Force Officer (TFO) Clarence Belton and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer Heather Loveridge, attempted to execute a search warrant at the house of a suspect, Larry McConneyhead, in Charlotte, North Carolina. During the operation, McConneyhead fled into his house, and a confrontation ensued. TFO Belton was accidentally shot by Officer Loveridge, who mistook him for the suspect. Belton suffered severe injuries, leading to multiple surgeries and permanent disability.The case was initially filed in North Carolina state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Belton alleged excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several state law claims against Officer Loveridge and the City of Charlotte. Officer Loveridge moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity for the federal claim and public officers’ immunity for the state claims. The district court denied her motion, citing genuine disputes of material fact regarding the circumstances of the shooting.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court failed to conduct the proper analysis for determining qualified immunity, which requires identifying the specific constitutional right violated and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to apply the correct legal standards for qualified immunity and public officers’ immunity. View "Belton v. Loveridge" on Justia Law

John Lowry, a harbor patrol officer, suffered physical and psychiatric injuries, including PTSD, from a workplace accident. His psychiatrist deemed him unfit to return to work, and the Port San Luis Harbor District (the District) indicated that his only option was retirement. Lowry applied for disability retirement, but the District denied his application, stating insufficient information to determine disability. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) also denied his application, and the District terminated his employment, claiming he voluntarily resigned, which was later admitted to be untrue.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the District, concluding that Lowry was not eligible for relief under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) because he could not perform his essential job duties with or without reasonable accommodations. The court found that disability retirement does not qualify as a term, condition, or privilege of employment under FEHA.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the denial of disability retirement payments is not an adverse employment action under FEHA. Disability retirement payments serve as income replacement for employees who can no longer work and do not facilitate continued employment, job performance, or advancement opportunities. The court concluded that an individual who is not a qualified employee cannot bring a disability discrimination claim under FEHA for the denial of disability retirement payments. The judgment in favor of the District was affirmed. View "Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist." on Justia Law

The complainant, John Ward, filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) alleging that the City of Stamford discriminated against him based on his veteran status and disability. The CHRO found reasonable cause and certified the complaint to the Office of Public Hearings (OPH). During the public hearing, Ward moved to amend his complaint to include a claim for denial of reasonable accommodations. The human rights referee granted the motion over the city's objection.The city filed an interlocutory administrative appeal with the Superior Court, arguing that the CHRO lacked jurisdiction to hear the amended complaint without a reasonable cause finding. The CHRO and Ward moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that interlocutory rulings are not appealable under General Statutes § 46a-94a (a) and that the statutory requirements for an interlocutory appeal under § 4-183 (b) were not met. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss, finding that the referee's ruling was a final decision under § 4-183 (a).The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that the referee's ruling was not a final decision under § 4-183 (a) because it did not terminate any aspect of the case or determine any rights or obligations. The court also determined that § 46a-94a (a) allows for interlocutory appeals under § 4-183 (b), but the city's appeal did not meet the criteria for such an appeal because postponement would not result in an inadequate remedy. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded with direction to grant the motions to dismiss the city's appeal. View "Stamford v. Commission on Human Rights& Opportunities" on Justia Law

A hospital in Siskiyou County, California, filed a lawsuit against the County of Siskiyou and other defendants, challenging the practice of bringing individuals with psychiatric emergencies to its emergency department under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. The hospital argued that it was not equipped or licensed to provide the necessary psychiatric care and sought to prevent the county from bringing such patients to its facility unless they had a physical emergency condition. The hospital also sought reimbursement for the costs associated with holding these patients.The Siskiyou County Superior Court denied the hospital's motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to stop the county from bringing psychiatric patients to its emergency department. The court found that the hospital had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that the burden on the county and the potential harm to the patients outweighed the hospital's concerns.The hospital's complaint included several causes of action, including violations of Medicaid laws, disability discrimination laws, mental health parity laws, and section 17000 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The hospital also alleged breach of an implied-in-fact contract for the costs incurred in providing post-stabilization services to psychiatric patients. The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaint without leave to amend, finding that the hospital failed to identify any clear legal mandate that the county or the Department of Health Care Services had violated.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal. The appellate court concluded that the hospital had not identified any mandatory and ministerial duty that the county or the department had violated, which is necessary to obtain a writ of mandate. The court also found that the hospital's breach of contract claim failed because there were no allegations of mutual consent to an implied contract. Consequently, the hospital's appeal from the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot. View "Siskiyou Hospital v. County of Siskiyou" on Justia Law

Michael Chapman, an Alabama inmate, sued prison officials and staff for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. Chapman alleged that an untreated ear infection led to severe injuries, including mastoiditis, a ruptured eardrum, and a brain abscess. He also claimed that the prison's refusal to perform cataract surgery on his right eye constituted deliberate indifference. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants except the prison’s medical contractor, which had filed for bankruptcy.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found Chapman’s claim against nurse Charlie Waugh time-barred and ruled against Chapman on other claims, including his request for injunctive relief against Commissioner John Hamm, citing sovereign immunity. The court also concluded that Chapman’s claims against other defendants failed on the merits and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s determination that Chapman’s claim against Waugh was time-barred, finding that Chapman’s cause of action accrued within the limitations period. The court vacated the district court’s judgment for Waugh and remanded for reconsideration in light of the recent en banc decision in Wade, which clarified the standard for deliberate indifference claims. The court also vacated the judgment for Hamm on Chapman’s cataract-related claim for injunctive relief, as sovereign immunity does not bar such claims. Additionally, the court vacated the summary judgment for all other defendants due to procedural errors, including inadequate notice and time for Chapman to respond, and remanded for further consideration. View "Chapman v. Dunn" on Justia Law

Matthew V. Herron filed a petition for writ of mandate against the San Diego Unified Port District and the Coronado Yacht Club, alleging that the lease of coastal public trust land to the private club violated the public trust doctrine, the San Diego Unified Port Act, the Public Resources Code, and the Port’s Master Plan. Herron claimed that the lease was executed without public notice or competitive bidding and requested the court to compel the Port District to comply with proper procedures and award the lease to a qualified applicant who would operate the property for public benefit.The Superior Court of San Diego County sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Port District’s discretionary decisions under a writ for traditional mandamus and that the time for filing a writ for administrative mandamus had expired. The court dismissed Herron’s petition with prejudice, leading to Herron’s appeal.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Herron failed to establish a claim for traditional mandamus because the Port District’s decision to lease the land involved discretionary authority, not a ministerial duty. The court also found that Herron’s petition for administrative mandamus was untimely, as it was filed more than four years after the lease became final, exceeding the 90-day statutory limit. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that Herron was not entitled to relief under either theory and affirmed the dismissal of his petition. View "Herron v. San Diego Unified Port District" on Justia Law

Claudia C. Conner, the plaintiff, was employed by the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) as General Counsel and Chief of Staff. She was terminated in November 2021, at the age of over sixty, despite having satisfactory job performance and receiving a raise a month prior. Conner alleges that her termination was due to age and gender discrimination, and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by a state vendor. She filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which issued a right to sue letter, leading her to file a lawsuit in the Oklahoma County District Court.The OESC moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Conner failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). The District Court of Oklahoma County denied the motion, citing material conflicts between the GTCA and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA). The OESC then sought and was granted a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and held that there are no material or irreconcilable conflicts between the GTCA and the OADA regarding the notice provisions. The court found that the GTCA's notice requirements apply to claims under the OADA. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with the GTCA notice provisions is a jurisdictional requirement for tort suits against governmental entities. View "CONNER v. STATE" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Richard Paiva, an inmate at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI), filed a suit against Lynne Corry, the warden of the maximum-security facility, in Providence County Superior Court. Paiva sought a declaratory judgment and either a writ of mandamus or an injunction based on a Department of Corrections (DOC) policy that mandates a daily minimum out-of-cell time of 8.5 hours for general population inmates, barring exigent circumstances. Paiva argued that this policy was a legislative rule with the force of law and sought declarations to that effect, along with enforcement of the policy.The defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that DOC policies do not create a private cause of action and that prison officials have discretion in matters affecting facility security. The defendant also contended that the DOC director, an indispensable party, was not named in the complaint. The Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, leading to Paiva's appeal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court noted procedural issues, including the absence of transcripts from the lower court proceedings, which hindered appellate review. More critically, the Court found that Paiva's failure to join the DOC director as a defendant was fatal to his request for declaratory relief, as the director's interests would be affected by such a declaration. Additionally, the Court held that a writ of mandamus was inappropriate because the DOC policies involved discretionary functions, not ministerial duties. Thus, the judgment in favor of the defendant was affirmed. View "Paiva v. Corry" on Justia Law