Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Young was serving a one-year probationary period working for the IRS when the agency removed her for misconduct. Young appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, challenging her removal as an unlawful adverse action and filed a formal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging that she had been terminated because of discrimination based on her national origin, disability, and prior protected EEO activity. An administrative judge (AJ) dismissed Young’s action, reasoning that Young was a probationary employee, not entitled to full appellate rights. Young filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, alleging whistleblower retaliation. The Office did not take action.Young then filed an Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeal, claiming that she had disclosed attendance violations and a hostile work environment, including refusal to accommodate her disabilities, and that she had been removed from her position in retaliation for those disclosures. The AJ ordered Young to make a nonfrivolous showing that she had made protected disclosures that led to her removal with detailed factual support. Young did not respond. The AJ dismissed her IRA appeal. Young contends that she was unable to file a timely response because of health issues, but she never sought an extension and she submitted other filings during the period she was given for filing a response. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Young failed to make nonfrivolous allegations that she made disclosures that the Board has jurisdiction to address in an IRA appeal, View "Young v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying a request for declaratory and injunctive relief to bar enforcement of the Franklin County School Board's policy requiring parents to provide a birth certificate and proof of residence in the county for any child who is homeschooled, holding that the policy was contrary to the Homeschool Statute, Va. Code 22.1-254.1.In denying declaratory and injunctive relief the circuit court found that the board's policy was not contrary to the Code, was not ultra vires, and addressed the "valid public policy of ensuring the children monitored by [the Board] are between the ages of five (5) and eighteen (18) and are residents of Franklin County." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board did not have authority to adopt the policy pursuant to section 22.1-78 because that statute only allows school boards to adopt regulations for the supervision of public schools, not home instruction. View "Sosebee v. Franklin County School Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's petition for judicial review for failure to exhaust Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) employee grievance remedies, holding that Appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies.After Appellant, who worked for FWP, was reassigned to a different position, Appellant petitioned for judicial review. The district judge dismissed the petition with prejudice, determining that Appellant had not exhausted all available administrative remedies by filing a grievance regarding his reassignment. Appellant then filed a grievance, which was denied as untimely. Appellant did not file exceptions. Instead, Appellant filed a second petition for judicial review in the district court. The district court granted FWP's motion to dismiss, determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Appellant's petition based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Appellant's failure to file exceptions barred his petition for judicial review. View "Flowers v. Board of Personnel Appeals, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the administrative decision of the Montana Tax Appeal Board (MTAB) regarding Petitioner's residency status and dismissing his petition for judicial review, holding that Petitioner did not sever his Montana residency during the years 2008 to 2012 for income tax purposes.The Montana Department of Revenue determined that Petitioner was a Montana resident from 2008 to 2012 and assessed Petitioner $515,321 of Montana resident income tax, interest, and penalties. The MTAB affirmed. On review, the district court denied Petitioner's petition regarding the issue of his residency. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it affirmed MTAB's administrative decision that Petitioner did not sever his Montana residency for income tax purposes from 2008 to 2012. View "Greenwood v. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

When the Los Angeles County Civil Service Rules 2.01 and 12.02(B) are read together, their plain meaning is that so long as the probationer is engaged in the duties of "a position or positions" she is not "absent from duty." Plaintiff, a deputy sheriff, challenges his employer's practice of extending probation while investigating the deputy's claimed misconduct as violating the rules.The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's issuance of a writ of mandate directing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to reinstate the deputy as a permanent civil service employee. The court held that the plain language of the rules does not authorize the department's practice of extending probation by re-assigning deputies under investigation to administrative duty. In this case, plaintiff became a permanent civil service employee 12 months after his probation began. Furthermore, the County's arguments premised upon avoiding absurd and impractical interpretations are unpersuasive. The court also agreed that plaintiff did not fail to exhaust administrative remedies. View "Trejo v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approving an application for a rate increase submitted by Hawai'i Gas (HG) and remanded this case to the PUC for further proceedings, holding that the PUC did not fulfill its statutory obligations under Haw. Rev. Stat. 269-6(b).Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) as "persons aggrieved" who participated in the contested case, Appellants had standing to appeal; (2) PUC failed to carry out its mandate under section 269-6(b); (3) the PUC's limitations in sub-issue No. 1h violated Appellants' due process rights by improperly curtailing Appellants' substantive participation; and (4) the PUC did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating HG's rate case rather than proceeding through rule-making. View "In re Application of The Gas Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Paul Martin appealed a superior court order denying his request for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendant City of Rochester (city), ruling that the city’s technical review group (TRG) was not a public body for purposes of New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law, and that the city’s copy fee schedule was in compliance with RSA 91-A:4, IV (Supp. 2016). On appeal, plaintiff argued that: (1) the TRG was a “public body,” as defined by RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (2013), because it was an “advisory committee,” and is therefore subject to the open-meeting requirement of RSA 91-A:2 (Supp. 2019); and (2) the city’s copy fee schedule was prohibited by RSA 91-A:4, IV, because it charged citizens requesting a copy of a public record more than the “actual cost” of making the copy. Plaintiff requested copies of certain documents from the city relating to the planning board and the TRG. The city charged a fee for making copies of city records or files: for black and white photocopies, the fee was fifty cents per page for the first ten pages and ten cents per page thereafter. After a bench trial, the court denied plaintiff’s prayers for relief. The New Hampshire Supreme Court disagreed with plaintiff's interpretation of RSA 91- A:1-a, I: plaintiff read the phrase "primary purpose" as relating only to the TRG’s role in “considering” an application, not necessarily “advising” on it. Under this reading, plaintiff contended the TRG’s primary purpose was to consider whatever “subject matter . . . the city manager has designated for consideration.” Further, the Supreme Court concurred with the superior court's finding that the City's fee for photocopying was based upon the actual cost of copying, and not the labor associated with making the copies. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was affirmed. View "Martin v. City of Rochester" on Justia Law

The Township of Manalapan challenged the condemnation award in favor of defendants entered after a jury trial. The issue was whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony that the condemned property’s highest and best use would require a variance without first determining whether there was a reasonable probability the variance would be granted. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded evidence that risks misleading the jury into assuming a zoning variance for purposes of calculating a property’s value must not be admitted absent a judicial finding it was reasonably probable that the variance will be obtained. Therefore, the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider testimony that the highest and best use of the subject property would require a variance without first confirming the probability of securing that variance. View "Township of Manalapan v. Gentile" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the school board to certify a petition proposing the transfer of territory from one school district to another and certify the transfer proposal to the board of elections for placement on the ballot at the August 4 special election, holding that a writ of mandamus was warranted.Petitioner, a qualified elector in the territory proposed to be transferred, filed a mandamus complaint alleging that the school board failed to comply with its statutory obligations to promptly certify the petition and the proposal to the board of elections and that the school board's unwarranted delay caused the transfer proposal to miss the deadline for certification to the August 4 ballot. Petitioner also sought a writ ordering the board of elections to place the proposal on the August 4 ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ as to the school board and denied it as to the elections board, holding (1) the school board had the opportunity to certify the proposal for placement on the August 4 special election ballot but declined to do so for reasons outside its authority; and (2) Petitioner's mandamus claim against the elections board was not ripe. View "State ex rel. Cook v. Bowling Green City Schools Board of Education" on Justia Law

Appellant, North Murrieta Community, LLC (North Murrieta), was the master developer of a large development project in the City of Murrieta (the City) called the Golden City Project. North Murrieta sought to take advantage of certain statutory land use planning tools that enabled builders to lock in place regulations, conditions, and fees municipalities could enforce against them while a project proceeds. In July 1999, North Murrieta obtained approval for a vesting tentative map on part of the Golden City Project property. In March 2001, four months before the map would expire, North Murrieta and the City entered a development agreement covering the entire Golden City Project property. The agreement extended the term of the vesting tentative map for 15 years and also locked in place regulations and fees the City could enforce against the developer on the entire project for the same period. The development agreement explicitly allowed the City to impose new fees on North Murrieta to mitigate the effects of development, provided the new fees were generally applicable and designed to address effects not fully mitigated by fees or exactions in place when the parties entered the development agreement. The City subsequently passed the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance (the TUMF ordinance), which was designed for just that purpose. In 2017, the City charged the new mitigation fees to a subsequent purchaser and developer of a subset of the affected properties. The builder made $541,497 in TUMF payments from July to October 2017, and the City transferred the bulk of those funds to respondent, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Both the developer and North Murrieta protested the fees. North Murrieta asked the trial court to order return of the TUMF payments and requested declarations that the City couldn’t impose the new mitigation fees under the extended vesting tentative map until it expired in 2019 and can’t impose those fees under the development agreement until it expires in 2021. The trial court held the development agreement established the parties’ rights and permitted the City to impose the new fees under the TUMF ordinance. North Murrieta appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, agreeing with the trial court. Though the vesting tentative map limited the fees the City could collect to those in place when the City approved the map, North Murrieta agreed to modify those rights by entering the development agreement with the City. The development agreement was a contract, which the trial court correctly enforced. View "North Murrieta Community, LLC v. City of Murrieta" on Justia Law