Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Tracy Turner, a railway conductor employed by BNSF Railway for fifteen years, failed two vision tests required by federal law in 2020. The first test was the Ishihara 14-plate clinical vision test, which Turner failed due to a color deficiency affecting his perception of red and green. At his request, Turner was given a second vision field test by BNSF’s medical examiner, which he also failed. Consequently, BNSF did not recertify Turner as a conductor, as required by federal regulations.Turner did not appeal the denial of his recertification through the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) administrative review process. Instead, he filed a disability-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which provided him with a right-to-sue letter. Turner then sued BNSF, claiming that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not recertifying him due to his color deficiency. BNSF moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the motion, ruling that Turner was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA and that his claim was precluded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Turner was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA because he failed to obtain the FRA-required certification and did not exhaust the available administrative remedies. The court emphasized that BNSF was bound by federal law and FRA regulations, which mandated the vision tests and certification process. Turner’s failure to pursue the FRA’s appeals process meant he could not establish an essential element of his ADA claim. View "Turner v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law

Kelly Rose, a former cashier at Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued her employer under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), alleging violations of the “suitable seating” provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. After a nine-day bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, and judgment was entered accordingly. Rose appealed, but the judgment was affirmed. Subsequently, Hobby Lobby sought nearly $125,000 in litigation costs as the prevailing party, which the trial court ordered the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to pay, despite the LWDA not participating in the litigation.The LWDA appealed the cost order, raising the issue of whether it could be held liable for litigation costs in a PAGA action where it did not participate. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court concluded that even if a prevailing defendant in a PAGA action is entitled to recover costs under the general cost recovery rule, those costs are not recoverable against the LWDA if it did not participate in the litigation. The court emphasized that the LWDA was not a party to the lawsuit and did not take any action until after the judgment was entered.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order requiring the LWDA to pay Hobby Lobby's litigation costs. The court held that the LWDA, as the real party in interest in a PAGA action, is not liable for costs if it did not intervene or participate in the litigation. The decision clarified that the LWDA's role in PAGA actions does not automatically make it liable for litigation costs incurred by a prevailing defendant. View "Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores" on Justia Law

Diana Penney, a pharmacy technician from 1980 to 2019, filed multiple work-related occupational disease claims due to repetitive activities at her job. She was diagnosed with low back issues, protruding disks in her neck and upper back, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Penney underwent surgeries and stopped working in August 2019 due to pain from these conditions. She sought permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund (the Fund).An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Penney was permanently and totally disabled due to the combined effect of her occupational diseases and awarded her PTD benefits from the Fund. The Fund appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, arguing that the ALJ improperly considered Penney’s preexisting occupational diseases under the relevant statutory category. The Commission disagreed and affirmed the ALJ’s award.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and held that preexisting occupational diseases do not qualify as preexisting disabilities under section 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii)1, which requires the disability to be a “direct result of a compensable injury as defined in section 287.020.” The court noted that section 287.020 encompasses injuries by accident and explicitly excludes occupational diseases. The court emphasized that the legislature’s choice to reference only section 287.020 in the statute indicates an intent to limit qualifying preexisting disabilities to accidental injuries. Consequently, the court reversed the Commission’s decision, ruling that Penney’s preexisting occupational diseases could not be considered in determining her entitlement to PTD benefits from the Fund. View "Treasurer v. Penney" on Justia Law

The case involves the Board of Trustees of a multiemployer pension plan primarily benefitting unionized bakery drivers in New York City, which applied for Special Financial Assistance (SFA) in 2022. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) denied the application, citing the plan's termination in 2016 as a disqualifying factor. The Fund, asserting it was in "critical and declining status," sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the PBGC, agreeing that the plan's termination made it ineligible for SFA. The court also concluded that a terminated plan could not be restored under ERISA, thus affirming the PBGC's denial of the Fund's application.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the SFA statute does not exclude plans based solely on a prior termination. The court found that the statute's reference to "critical and declining status" incorporates the definition from 29 U.S.C. § 1085(b)(6) without importing limitations from other sections. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for the Fund, vacate the PBGC's denial of the SFA application, and remand to the PBGC for reconsideration. View "Bd. of Trs. of the Bakery Drivers Loc. 550 v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation" on Justia Law

A dispute arose regarding the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) rule on when one entity is considered a joint employer of another entity’s employees. The NLRB determined that Google was a joint employer of Cognizant employees working on Google’s YouTube Music platform and ordered both companies to bargain with the employees’ union, the Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers of America, Local 9009 (AWU). Google and Cognizant refused to bargain, leading the NLRB to conclude that this refusal violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The employers petitioned for review, arguing they were not joint employers, but the contract under which the employees provided services to Google expired, rendering the petitions and the Board’s cross-applications for enforcement moot. The Union also petitioned for review, contending that the NLRB’s remedies were insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the expiry of the Google-Cognizant contract meant there was no longer any relationship to support the joint-employer finding, making the case moot. The court dismissed Google’s and Cognizant’s petitions and the Board’s cross-applications as moot and vacated the order below. The court also dismissed as jurisdictionally barred the part of AWU’s petition seeking review of the NLRB’s decision to sever the issue of a make-whole remedy for employees and dismissed as moot those parts of AWU’s petition seeking prospective remedies.The court denied the remainder of AWU’s petition, concluding that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion by ordering only the customary remedies. The court emphasized that the Board’s choice of remedies is primarily within its province and subject to very limited judicial review. View "Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Dr. Blake Vanderlan, a physician at a hospital operated by Jackson HMA, LLC, alleged that the hospital systematically violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). He reported these violations to the Department of Health and Human Services, prompting an investigation by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS confirmed the violations and referred the matter to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for potential civil monetary penalties. Vanderlan then filed a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Jackson HMA, alleging five FCA violations, including a retaliation claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi handled the case initially. The government investigated Vanderlan’s claims but declined to intervene. The case continued for six and a half years, during which the district court severed Vanderlan’s retaliation claims. The government eventually moved to dismiss the qui tam claims, arguing that the lawsuit interfered with administrative settlement negotiations and lacked merit. The district court granted the dismissal based on written filings and reaffirmed its decision after reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in denying Vanderlan an evidentiary hearing, as the FCA only requires a hearing on the briefs. The court also determined that the government’s motion to dismiss fell under Rule 41(a)(1), which allows for dismissal without a court order, and thus, the district court had no discretion to deny the dismissal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the government’s decision to dismiss the case was justified and that the district court applied the correct standard. View "Vanderlan v. Jackson HMA" on Justia Law

James Stefanski, a former employee of Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority, alleged that he was constructively discharged in retaliation for reporting his supervisor's gross negligence. The incident in question involved a 911 call where the supervisor coded the call as "shots fired" instead of "someone shot," resulting in a delayed emergency medical response and the subsequent death of a woman. Stefanski reported his concerns to the director, who dismissed them as a judgment call. Following this, Stefanski experienced increased stress, missed work, and eventually resigned after being suspended for excessive absences, which he believed was a pretext for retaliation.The Saginaw Circuit Court granted summary disposition to the defendant, ruling that reporting gross negligence, a common law violation, was not protected under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA). The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, relying on a precedent that reporting common law violations, such as malpractice, does not fall under the WPA's protections.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the term "law" in the WPA includes the common law. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to determine whether gross negligence is a violation of "a" law under the WPA and whether Stefanski's actions constituted a report under the statute. The Supreme Court emphasized that the WPA should be liberally construed to protect whistleblowers and that excluding common law from its scope would undermine its purpose. View "Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (DOC) implemented changes to its Absenteeism Management Program (AMP), citing abuse of the existing sick-time policy. The changes included new discipline tracks, sanctions for absenteeism, stricter sick note requirements, and closer scrutiny of pattern sick time use. The Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers (RIBCO) requested bargaining over these changes, which the DOC refused, leading RIBCO to file an unfair labor practice charge.The Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board (SLRB) found that the DOC had committed an unfair labor practice by making substantial changes to working conditions without bargaining. The board rejected the DOC's defenses, including the argument that the changes were within the director’s statutory authority and the management-rights clause of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).The DOC appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the SLRB's decision. The Superior Court found that the board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the changes were within the DOC director’s statutory authority under Rhode Island law.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court held that the SLRB's decision was not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. It also agreed that the changes to the AMP were within the DOC director’s statutory authority under sections 42-56-10(2), (5), and (7) of the Rhode Island General Laws, which grant the director broad discretion in managing the department, maintaining safety and order, and disciplining employees. Thus, the DOC was not obligated to bargain over the AMP changes. View "State of Rhode Island v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Former employees of Shriners Hospitals for Children were terminated for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccination. They sued their employer, its agents, and the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services, alleging violations of their right to refuse the vaccine under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Statute, and various Texas state laws.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed all claims. It found no personal jurisdiction over the agents due to the fiduciary shield doctrine, determined that Shriners was not a state actor when it implemented the vaccination policy, and ruled that the EUA Statute did not apply. The court also dismissed the claims against the Commissioner, concluding she was not liable for failing to stop Shriners from enforcing the policy. The state-law claims were dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It agreed that there was no personal jurisdiction over the agents and that Shriners was not a state actor when it adopted the vaccination policy. The court also held that the EUA Statute did not apply to Shriners in its capacity as an employer and that the Commissioner was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a clearly established right requiring her intervention. The appellate court modified the dismissal of the state-law claims to be without prejudice and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Pearson v. Shriners Hospitals" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board of Trustees of the California State University (CSU) mandated remote instruction. Patrick Krug, a biology professor at California State University Los Angeles, incurred expenses for necessary equipment to comply with this directive, which CSU refused to reimburse. Krug filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated faculty, claiming that Labor Code section 2802 required CSU to reimburse these work-related expenses. CSU argued that as a state department, it was exempt from such Labor Code provisions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained CSU’s demurrer without leave to amend, leading to a judgment of dismissal. The court reasoned that CSU, as a governmental agency, was exempt from section 2802 because the section did not explicitly apply to public employers. Krug appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that Labor Code section 2802 did not obligate CSU to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. The court found no express language or positive indicia in the statute or its legislative history indicating that it applied to public employers. The court also noted that applying section 2802 to CSU would infringe on its sovereign powers, as CSU has broad discretion under the Education Code to set its own equipment reimbursement policies.The California Supreme Court granted review and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Stone v. Alameda Health System. Upon reconsideration, the appellate court again affirmed the judgment, maintaining that section 2802 does not apply to public employers like CSU. View "Krug v. Board of Trustees of the California State University" on Justia Law