Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Ayala, a correctional officer for California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), was injured in a planned attack by inmates. He filed a workers’ compensation claim, asserting that his injuries were due to CDCR’s serious and willful misconduct in failing to address a credible threat of inmate violence. A workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) initially rejected this claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) found in favor of Ayala, concluding that he was entitled to a 50 percent increase in compensation under Labor Code section 4553 due to CDCR’s serious and willful misconduct.The CDCR did not dispute the finding of serious and willful misconduct but argued that the 50 percent increase should be calculated based on the temporary disability (TD) benefits Ayala would have received under the workers’ compensation law, not the more generous industrial disability leave (IDL) and enhanced industrial disability leave (EIDL) benefits he received under the Government Code. The WCJ agreed with CDCR, but the Board reversed, including IDL and EIDL benefits in the calculation of the increased compensation.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeal, which had reversed the Board’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the term “compensation” under Labor Code section 4553, as defined in section 3207, is limited to benefits provided under the workers’ compensation law. Therefore, the 50 percent increase in compensation for serious and willful misconduct should be calculated based on the TD benefits Ayala was entitled to under the workers’ compensation law, not the IDL and EIDL benefits provided under the Government Code. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed. View "Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

The case involves Tarlochan Sandhu, who worked for various public agencies as a finance and accounting professional and was a member of CalPERS, receiving retirement benefits upon his retirement in 2011. After retiring, Sandhu was hired by Regional Government Services (RGS) in 2015, which assigned him to work for several cities. RGS considered Sandhu its employee, providing him with benefits and paying him, while the cities paid RGS for his services. CalPERS determined Sandhu was a common law employee of the cities, violating postretirement employment rules, and the trial court upheld this determination.The Superior Court of Sacramento County reviewed the case, where Sandhu challenged CalPERS’s decision, arguing he was not a common law employee and that the decision was based on underground regulations. The trial court applied its independent judgment, finding the evidence supported CalPERS’s determination that Sandhu was a common law employee of the cities. The court found the cities had the right to control Sandhu’s work, which is the principal test for an employment relationship, and that several secondary factors also supported this conclusion.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the common law test for employment applies and that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Sandhu was a common law employee of the cities. The court also found that Sandhu forfeited his argument regarding underground regulations by not properly raising it in the trial court. The judgment was affirmed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs on appeal. View "Sandhu v. Bd. of Admin. of CalPERS" on Justia Law

Three states challenged an executive order issued by President Joseph R. Biden, which mandated that federal contractors pay their workers a minimum hourly wage of $15. The states argued that the President exceeded his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) and that the order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the nondelegation doctrine. The district court for the Southern District of Texas agreed with the states, finding that the FPASA did not grant the President broad authority to set minimum wages for federal contractors and that the executive order was a major question beyond the President's authority. The court permanently enjoined the executive order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the executive order was a permissible exercise of the President's authority under the FPASA. The court found that the FPASA's language was clear and unambiguous, granting the President broad authority to prescribe policies necessary to carry out the Act's provisions, as long as those policies were consistent with the Act. The court determined that the executive order met these requirements, as it aimed to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement by ensuring contractors paid their workers adequately.The Fifth Circuit also addressed the application of the major questions doctrine, concluding that it did not apply in this case because the FPASA's text was clear and unambiguous. The court noted that the President's exercise of proprietary authority in managing federal contracts did not raise a major question requiring clear congressional authorization. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's permanent injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State of Texas v. Trump" on Justia Law

Kristie Williams, a former employee of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for her daughter, who was allegedly sexually assaulted while serving in the Marine Corps. The University approved her leave, but Williams claimed she continued to receive work-related communications and criticism from her supervisors during her leave. This led to her resignation, and she subsequently sued the University, alleging interference with her FMLA rights and retaliation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied the University’s motion to dismiss, which argued that the suit was barred by state sovereign immunity. The court reasoned that Williams might have been seeking family-care leave under the FMLA, for which the Supreme Court had previously held that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Williams’s suit could proceed regardless of whether she sought family-care leave, active-duty leave, or servicemember-family leave. For family-care leave, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hibbs confirmed that Congress had abrogated state sovereign immunity. For active-duty and servicemember-family leave, the court concluded that Alabama waived its sovereign immunity under the plan-of-the-Convention doctrine when it joined the Union, as these provisions were enacted pursuant to Congress’s constitutional authority to raise and support the military. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the University’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama" on Justia Law

Dr. Jabeen N. Abutalib, a physician with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) for alleged retaliatory personnel actions following her Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint. Dr. Abutalib claimed that her EEO complaint, which was settled in January 2020, led to adverse actions including a reduction in pay and reassignment. She filed a whistleblower complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and subsequently appealed to the MSPB.The MSPB dismissed Dr. Abutalib’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that she failed to make a nonfrivolous showing of whistleblowing or other protected activity. The administrative judge noted that as a VHA physician, Dr. Abutalib could not appeal adverse agency actions under chapter 75 of title 5. Additionally, the judge found that her claims of retaliation for filing an EEO complaint did not constitute whistleblowing under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or protected activity under § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i).The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the MSPB’s decision. The court held that Dr. Abutalib did not present her argument regarding the settlement agreement as evidence of whistleblowing to the administrative judge, and thus could not raise it for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the court found that the matters addressed in the settlement agreement were not the subjects of her OSC complaint, indicating a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that Dr. Abutalib did not make a nonfrivolous showing of a qualifying whistleblowing disclosure and upheld the MSPB’s dismissal of her appeal. View "ABUTALIB v. MSPB " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39 (the Union), Macy’s Inc., and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). During negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, Union members rejected Macy’s final offer and went on strike. After three months, the Union ended the strike and offered to return to work unconditionally. Macy’s responded by locking out the Union members, which led the Union to file a charge with the NLRB, alleging that the lockout was an unfair labor practice.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Union, finding that Macy’s violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by locking out employees without providing a clear and complete offer outlining the conditions necessary to avoid the lockout. The NLRB adopted the ALJ’s findings and ordered Macy’s to reinstate the employees and compensate them for any losses incurred due to the lockout. Macy’s and the Union both petitioned for review of the NLRB’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction because the Union was a “person aggrieved” by the NLRB’s decision. The court found that substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s conclusion that Macy’s lockout was unlawful because the Union was not clearly and fully informed of the conditions necessary for reinstatement. The court also upheld the NLRB’s remedial order, including the make-whole relief for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, finding no clear abuse of discretion.The Ninth Circuit denied both the Union’s and Macy’s petitions for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement of its final order. The court concluded that the NLRB’s actions were within its broad discretion to effectuate the policies of the NLRA. View "MACY'S INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" on Justia Law

Dr. Neena Biswas, a physician at the VA’s Dallas facility, alleged that the VA retaliated against her for whistleblowing by converting her appointment from permanent to temporary and subsequently terminating her employment. Dr. Biswas had made disclosures regarding the hiring process for the Chief of the Hospitalist Section, which she believed violated statutory requirements prioritizing U.S. citizens.The Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) found that Dr. Biswas’s disclosures were protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act and contributed to the VA’s actions. However, the Board denied her request for corrective action, concluding that the VA would have taken the same actions regardless of her disclosures. The Board determined that the VA had strong evidence supporting its personnel actions, including Dr. Biswas’s unprofessional and disruptive conduct, and that other similarly situated employees were treated similarly.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, agreeing that the VA had clear and convincing evidence to support its actions. The court noted that Dr. Biswas’s conduct, including refusing patient assignments and sending inflammatory emails, justified the VA’s actions. The court also found that the Board’s error in considering Dr. Biswas’s emails to the VA Secretary as insubordination was harmless, as the decision was supported by other substantial evidence of her misconduct. The court concluded that the VA met its burden of proving it would have taken the same actions absent the whistleblowing. View "BISWAS v. DVA " on Justia Law

Oak Reile, a delivery driver for Core Mark International, Inc., suffered a cervical spine fracture after falling off a loading ramp at work. He underwent surgery and rehabilitation, resulting in quadriplegia and other severe conditions. Reile later sought workers' compensation benefits for a psychological condition, specifically adjustment disorder with depressed mood, which he claimed was caused by his physical injury. Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) denied his claim, leading Reile to request reconsideration and an independent medical review.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) affirmed WSI's denial, concluding that while Reile's psychological condition resulted from his work injury, it did not meet the requirements of the North Dakota Administrative Code § 92-01-02-02.5. This regulation required the psychological condition to be the "physiological product" of the physical injury. The ALJ found that Reile's condition was compensable under the statute but not under the administrative rule. The district court upheld the ALJ's decision, leading to Reile's appeal.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that WSI exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating N.D. Admin. Code § 92-01-02-02.5. The court held that the regulation was invalid because it imposed additional burdens not present in the statute, such as requiring proof of a physiological nexus and excluding certain aspects of physical injuries from consideration. The court found that the ALJ's decision to deny benefits based on the invalid regulation was not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that Reile was entitled to benefits under the applicable statute. View "Reile v. WSI" on Justia Law

Dennis Neal, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning technician at Howard University Hospital, was injured on the job when a ladder gave way beneath him. He experienced pain and underwent spinal surgery. After attempting to return to work and experiencing further pain, he quit and sought reinstatement of his disability benefits and vocational rehabilitation services. The hospital terminated his benefits when he accepted new employment but quit after four days due to physical discomfort from long drives and job duties.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted Neal's claim for reinstatement of benefits and services, and the Compensation Review Board (CRB) affirmed. The hospital appealed, arguing that the CRB lacked substantial evidence to support its findings that Neal did not voluntarily limit his income and did not fail to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation. The hospital contended that the ALJ and CRB ignored critical testimony from witnesses.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the CRB's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the ALJ's findings were based on credible evidence, including medical evaluations and Neal's testimony about his physical limitations and the nature of the job duties at his new employment. The court also found that Neal had cooperated with vocational rehabilitation services and had demonstrated a willingness to continue doing so.The court held that the CRB's decision flowed rationally from the facts and was supported by substantial evidence. The court affirmed the CRB's decision to reinstate Neal's temporary total disability benefits and vocational rehabilitation services. View "Howard University Hospital v. D.C. Department of Employment Services" on Justia Law

The case involves the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) challenging the County of Los Angeles and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) over the implementation of Penal Code sections 13670 and 13510.8. These sections, effective January 1, 2022, prohibit law enforcement gang participation and authorize revocation of peace officer certification for serious misconduct, including gang participation. On May 12, 2023, the OIG sent letters to 35 Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) deputies, directing them to participate in interviews about law enforcement gangs and to display and provide photographs of certain tattoos. ALADS filed an unfair labor practice claim and sought injunctive relief, arguing that the interviews violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Ordinance (ERO).The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the OIG from conducting the interviews until the County completed its meet-and-confer obligations under the MMBA or until the unfair labor practice claim was adjudicated. The court found that the interview directive had significant and adverse effects on the deputies' working conditions, thus triggering the duty to meet and confer.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the OIG’s interview directive, which required deputies to disclose their own and their colleagues' gang affiliations under threat of discipline, had significant and adverse effects on working conditions. The court held that these effects necessitated bargaining under the MMBA. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the interim harm, noting the lack of compelling need for immediate investigation and the potential irreparable harm to ALADS from the County’s failure to meet and confer. View "Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of L.A." on Justia Law