Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

An employee of a Texas electric utility company testified before a legislative committee about technical problems with the company's new smart meters, attributing fire hazards to the meters and referencing specific service calls. He was also the chief spokesperson for the union representing workers at the company, and he testified the day after unsuccessful collective bargaining negotiations. In his testimony, he identified himself as both an employee and a union representative, but did not mention the ongoing labor dispute or the negotiations. After learning of his remarks, the company terminated his employment, citing a violation of its policy against providing misleading information to public officials.An administrative law judge found that the employee’s testimony was protected under federal labor law, specifically section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects concerted activities for mutual aid or collective bargaining. The National Labor Relations Board agreed, concluding the company had committed unfair labor practices and ordering reinstatement and back pay. On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit previously found the testimony was not “maliciously untrue” but remanded for the Board to determine whether the employee’s speech sufficiently indicated it was connected to an ongoing labor dispute. On remand, the Board again found the discharge unlawful, reasoning that the context and the employee’s identification as a union representative sufficiently communicated the labor dispute connection.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the employee’s statements were not protected because they did not disclose a connection to an ongoing labor dispute, as required by Supreme Court precedent. The court found the Board’s analysis legally erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. It therefore granted the company's petition for review, denied enforcement of the Board’s order, and vacated the finding of an unfair labor practice. View "Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Two builders’ associations, whose members are largely non-union construction contractors, challenged a federal procurement mandate issued by executive order in February 2022. The order, issued by the President, presumptively requires all contractors and subcontractors on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more to enter into project labor agreements with unions. The order allows for three specific exceptions if a senior agency official provides a written explanation. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued regulations implementing the order, and the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance. The associations argued that the mandate unfairly deprived their members of contracting opportunities and brought a facial challenge under several statutory and constitutional grounds, seeking to enjoin the mandate’s enforcement.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the associations were likely to succeed on their claim under the Competition in Contracting Act, since the government was not meaningfully applying the order’s exceptions, but concluded that the associations would not suffer irreparable harm because they could challenge individual procurements in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The district court did not consider irreparable harm as to the associations’ other claims.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, although for different reasons. The Eleventh Circuit held that the associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial challenge under the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. The court emphasized that the existence of written exceptions in the executive order precluded a facial invalidity finding, and that the government acted within its statutory and proprietary authority. The court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast Chapter v. General Services Administration" on Justia Law

The case concerns the termination of the General Counsel of the District of Columbia Retirement Board (DCRB), who had served in that role for nearly fourteen years. Following an internal investigation in 2021–2022, DCRB found that the General Counsel had failed to properly investigate and disclose conflict-of-interest allegations about a prior Executive Director. Based on these findings, DCRB initiated removal proceedings, ultimately deciding to terminate the General Counsel. The termination notice advised her of her right to appeal to the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA), where she argued, among other things, that her removal violated a regulatory “ninety-day rule.”Before OEA, the General Counsel claimed that she was a Career Service employee, which would entitle her to removal protections and OEA review. DCRB did not contest this characterization before OEA. OEA found in her favor and ordered her reinstatement, concluding that DCRB had violated the ninety-day rule. DCRB then petitioned the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for review, newly contending that the General Counsel was not in the Career Service but instead was a Senior Executive Attorney in the Legal Service—a category of at-will employees not entitled to OEA review or removal protections. The Superior Court found factual disputes regarding her employment status and remanded the case to OEA to determine its jurisdiction.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the statutory provisions governing DCRB and the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act unambiguously classified the General Counsel as a Senior Executive Attorney in the Legal Service, making her an at-will employee not entitled to OEA review. The court concluded that the Superior Court committed clear error by remanding for factual findings on this question. Accordingly, it reversed the Superior Court’s order and directed that Ms. Sampson’s OEA appeal be dismissed. View "District of Columbia Retirement Board v. Office of Employee Appeals" on Justia Law

Raunona Mays, an African American woman employed as a Sergeant with the Arkansas Highway Police, applied for four promotions between 2022 and 2023 but was denied each time. She alleges that less qualified Caucasian males or individuals with less experience and education received the positions. After filing an internal grievance regarding one promotion and receiving no relief, Mays filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint alleging race and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation. The EEOC dismissed her charge and issued a right-to-sue letter, after which Mays brought suit seeking damages, a promotion, and injunctive relief.The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the Arkansas Highway Police’s motion to dismiss, which was based on sovereign immunity. The agency argued that it could not be sued under the United States Constitution and federal statutes, as well as the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, because it is protected by sovereign immunity. The circuit court rejected this argument, allowing all claims to proceed.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the appeal and held that Mays’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act could not proceed against the state agency because the agency is not considered a “person” under these statutes and is protected by sovereign immunity. The court reversed and remanded those claims for dismissal. However, the court determined that claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not barred by sovereign immunity when brought against a state agency, and that Mays had pleaded sufficient facts to state a Title VII claim. The decision of the Pulaski County Circuit Court was affirmed as to the Title VII claim but reversed and remanded for dismissal of the other claims. View "ARKANSAS HIGHWAY POLICE v. MAYS" on Justia Law

Americare Healthcare Services, Inc., a third-party home care provider in Ohio, and its owner, Dilli Adhikari, hired live-in workers—most of whom cared for their own family members—to provide services to elderly or disabled clients. Between October 2018 and October 2021, Americare failed to pay overtime wages to these employees, claiming entitlement to exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): the “Companionship Services Exemption” and the “Live-In Exemption.” The Department of Labor, however, had promulgated a 2013 regulation that prohibited third-party employers from relying on these exemptions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the Department of Labor, finding Americare and Adhikari liable for willful violations of the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The district court further held that the 2013 Third-Party Regulation was valid, and that Americare and Adhikari lacked standing to challenge a related regulatory definition that narrowed the scope of “companionship services.” Americare and Adhikari appealed only the district court’s rulings on the regulation’s validity and their lack of standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case, applying the framework for agency rulemaking authority post-Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Sixth Circuit held that the FLSA’s express statutory delegation allowed the Department of Labor to define and delimit the applicability of the companionship and live-in exemptions, including excluding third-party employers from their reach. The court further held that Americare and Adhikari lacked standing to challenge the definition of companionship services because the bar to their use of the exemption arose from the third-party regulation, not from the definition itself. The judgment of the district court was therefore affirmed. View "Department of Labor v. Americare Healthcare Services" on Justia Law

A county office established to oversee the sheriff’s department received a whistleblower complaint and, in conducting its investigation, issued subpoenas to certain sheriff’s employees seeking documents and testimony. The sheriff’s employees refused to comply, and both the sheriff’s office and the deputy sheriffs’ union asserted that the oversight office did not have authority to issue subpoenas related to whistleblower investigations. The oversight office then petitioned the Sonoma County Superior Court for an order enforcing the subpoenas and initiating contempt proceedings against the noncompliant parties.The Sonoma County Superior Court denied the oversight office’s request, finding that it did not have the authority to issue the subpoenas under the relevant laws and local ordinances. The oversight office appealed this denial, arguing that state law granted it subpoena power and that no labor agreement or local ordinance eliminated this authority.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. It first determined that the trial court’s order was appealable as a final judgment. On the merits, the appellate court held that section 25303.7 of the Government Code directly grants subpoena power to sheriff oversight entities created under that statute, and that the oversight office in question qualified as such an entity—even though it was not named “inspector general.” The court further held that the existence of a labor agreement between the county and the union did not eliminate the statutory subpoena authority and that any contrary provisions in the agreement could not override state law. The court also rejected arguments that the oversight office lacked authority to investigate the sheriff individually, and found that newly enacted law clarified that such entities have access to peace officer personnel records. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to enforce the subpoenas. View "Independent Office of Law v. Sonoma County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Two married tenured professors at California State University, Chico alleged that they were subjected to harassment and discrimination by their department chair, with one professor experiencing conduct targeted at her gender and Korean ancestry. Despite their reports to university administration, the university did not intervene. As a result, one professor suffered serious mental health consequences, leading their doctor to recommend that she not work in the same environment as the chair. The university’s lack of response allegedly forced both professors to resign and accept positions at another university. After their resignation, the university initiated an investigation into one professor for an alleged violation of student privacy laws and communicated these allegations to the new employer, which the professors claimed was intended to sabotage their new employment. There were also alleged delays in transferring their lab equipment.The professors filed suit in the Superior Court of Butte County, asserting, among other claims, retaliation and whistleblower retaliation under California law. The university filed a special motion to strike these two causes of action under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the claims were based in part on communications protected by the statute. The trial court denied the motion, finding the university’s actions involved an official proceeding but also concluding that the professors demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on their claims.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court held that the university failed to carry its burden to show that all actions underlying the challenged causes of action were protected activity. The court clarified that the presence of some protected communications within the allegations does not mean the entire cause of action arises from protected activity. The judgment denying the anti-SLAPP motion was therefore affirmed. View "Pechkis v. Trustees of the Cal. State University" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a United States Army veteran with disabilities, worked as a table games dealer at a casino operated by Harrah’s NC Casino Company in North Carolina. After being terminated and banned from the property, allegedly due to his emotional distress, veteran status, and health history, he was told he could be rehired after one year. When he reapplied, his job offer was rescinded, and he was denied rehire. The plaintiff claimed that his termination and subsequent denial of reemployment were the result of discrimination and retaliation based on his exercise of rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).After the plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Harrah’s moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7), arguing that the Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise (TCGE), a wholly owned entity of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, was the plaintiff’s true employer and a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19. Because TCGE was protected by tribal sovereign immunity and could not be joined, the district court dismissed the complaint. The district court relied on a declaration from TCGE’s human resources vice president and prior case law to conclude that TCGE’s contractual and economic interests would be prejudiced by the litigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of Rule 19 and found that it abused its discretion by determining that TCGE was a necessary party. The appellate court held that the record did not support the conclusion that TCGE’s presence was essential to afford complete relief or protect contractual interests, and that the district court’s analysis was speculative and unsupported. The Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Peterson v. Harrah's NC Casino Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Two companies that operate app-based delivery platforms challenged a Seattle ordinance enacted in 2023, which aims to protect gig economy workers from unwarranted account deactivations. The law requires “network companies” to provide workers with written deactivation policies and mandates that these policies be “reasonably related” to the companies’ safe and efficient operations. The ordinance also delineates examples of impermissible deactivation grounds, such as those based solely on customer ratings or certain background checks. The companies did not contest the general bar on unwarranted deactivations but argued that the notice and deactivation policy requirements violate the First Amendment and that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the companies sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the ordinance from taking effect. The district court denied their motion. It found that the ordinance regulates conduct (the act of deactivating accounts) rather than speech, and that any impact on expression is incidental. The court also concluded that the use of “reasonable” in the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, pointing to statutory context and specific examples for guidance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. The court held that the ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct, not speech, and thus does not trigger First Amendment scrutiny. Alternatively, if the ordinance were seen as regulating speech, that speech would be commercial in nature, and the law would satisfy the lower level of scrutiny applicable to compelled factual commercial disclosures. The court further held that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague, as it provides adequate notice of what is prohibited. The disposition by the Ninth Circuit was to affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. View "MAPLEBEAR INC. V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

Jennifer Neal was employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a Field Examiner until her removal in August 2020 for alleged unacceptable performance. She challenged her removal before the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board), arguing that the VA violated the terms of a master collective bargaining agreement by failing to provide her with a performance improvement plan (PIP) prior to removal, and that the performance standards applied to her were unreasonable. During the pendency of her appeal, a Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) decision confirmed the requirement for the VA to provide a PIP before removing bargaining unit employees, as established in a prior arbitration. The administrative judge (AJ) found that the VA's removal of Neal was not in accordance with law and set aside the removal.The VA petitioned for review of the AJ’s decision to the full Board, arguing that the FLRA decision was factually and legally distinguishable. While the petition was pending, the VA voluntarily reinstated Neal, provided her back pay, and otherwise made her whole, effectively granting her all the relief she sought. The Board dismissed the VA’s petition as moot, recognizing that Neal had obtained complete relief. Neal then moved for attorneys’ fees. The AJ granted her request, finding her to be the prevailing party. However, upon the VA’s further petition, the Board reversed, reasoning that because the case became moot before a final Board decision, Neal was not a prevailing party and thus not entitled to fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court held that Neal was a prevailing party because the AJ’s merits decision conferred enduring judicial relief that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties, and the subsequent mootness resulting from the VA’s voluntary compliance did not negate her prevailing party status. The court reversed the Board’s denial of attorneys’ fees and awarded costs to Neal. View "NEAL v. DVA " on Justia Law