Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Two female employees, both recreation therapists with bachelor’s degrees and relevant experience, applied for a mid-level management position at a state hospital alongside three other internal candidates. A male coworker, who lacked formal education and prior experience in recreation therapy, was ultimately promoted to the position after an interview process. The female applicants felt humiliated by the decision, believing they were more qualified, and subsequently filed sex discrimination complaints with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry’s Human Rights Bureau.After an evidentiary hearing, a Hearing Officer found that while the women established prima facie cases of sex discrimination, they failed to show the hospital’s stated reason—Martin’s superior interview performance—was a pretext for discrimination. The Montana Human Rights Commission affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision, finding it was supported by substantial evidence. The women then sought judicial review in the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County. The District Court reversed the Human Rights Commission, determining several factual findings were clearly erroneous and awarding damages and attorney fees to the plaintiffs.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court had overstepped its authority under the Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) by substituting its own judgment for that of the agency. The Supreme Court held that substantial evidence supported the Hearing Officer’s findings, and the District Court erred by reweighing evidence and overturning those findings based simply on conflicting evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s judgment, including the award of damages and attorney fees, and reinstated the Human Rights Commission’s final agency decision, ruling in favor of the hospital. View "Difolco v. Montana State Hospital" on Justia Law

At a psychiatric hospital, employees were exposed to violent behavior from disturbed patients. Following a tip, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigated and cited the hospital for failing to implement measures that could have protected staff from workplace violence. These measures included reconfiguring nurses’ stations, providing communication devices, fully implementing existing safety programs, maintaining adequate staffing, securing patient belongings, hiring specialized security staff, and investigating each incident of workplace violence. The hospital did not contest the necessity of some measures but challenged the citation overall.An administrative law judge with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission conducted a hearing, upheld the citation, and imposed a fine. The judge’s decision became the final decision of the Review Commission when it declined further review. The hospital then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for judicial review, arguing that another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had exclusive authority over hospital safety, that the Secretary of Labor should have deferred to other regulatory bodies, and that the Secretary’s methods and notice were insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the Secretary of Labor had the authority to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause in this context, as the cited agency did not actually regulate employee safety regarding workplace violence. The court found that the Secretary provided fair notice, acted within statutory authority, and permissibly used adjudication rather than rulemaking. The court also concluded that the abatement measures were feasible, supported by substantial evidence, and that the imposed sanctions for failure to preserve video evidence were appropriate. The Tenth Circuit denied the hospital’s petition for review, upholding the citation and penalty. View "Cedar Springs Hospital v. Occupational Health and Safety" on Justia Law

Several health care facilities and their affiliates faced administrative complaints from the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2012 for alleged unfair labor practices. The proceedings were assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kenneth Chu, who developed the factual record over multiple hearings. During this period, the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning invalidated certain NLRB Board appointments, calling into question ALJ Chu’s own appointment. The Board later “ratified” prior actions, including Chu’s appointment, after regaining a lawful quorum. Administrative proceedings were delayed for several years due to interlocutory appeals and COVID-19, and ultimately resumed in 2023. Shortly before resumption, the plaintiffs sought to halt the proceedings, arguing the ALJ was unlawfully appointed and protected from removal in a manner unconstitutional under the separation of powers.The plaintiffs initially sought relief in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which denied a temporary restraining order and transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. There, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, again raising constitutional arguments regarding the ALJ’s appointment and removal protections. The District of Connecticut denied the injunction, finding the plaintiffs had not shown a clear likelihood of success on the merits. Proceedings before ALJ Chu concluded in May 2024, after which Chu retired and the NLRB Board assumed de novo review of the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the appeal. It assumed jurisdiction but declined to address the likelihood of success on the merits, instead affirming the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate irreparable harm. The court held that, because all proceedings before the challenged ALJ had concluded and the Board (now lawfully constituted) would conduct de novo review, there was no risk of irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief. The order was affirmed. View "Care One, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A female custodian employed by a public university filed a Title IX complaint alleging physical assault and a pattern of sexual harassment by a male co-worker, both of whom were members of the same union. The university, which receives federal funding, initiated a Title IX grievance process compliant with 2020 federal Title IX Regulations. After an investigation and hearing in which both parties participated, university decision-makers found the accused violated university policy and determined there was just cause for his termination. The accused’s appeal within the Title IX process was unsuccessful, and he was terminated.The union representing the accused employee filed a grievance under its 2019 collective negotiation agreement (CNA) with the university, seeking arbitration to determine whether the termination was for just cause. The university denied the grievance, arguing that the federal Title IX Regulations preempted the CNA’s grievance procedure. The union sought arbitration through the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), which denied the university’s request to restrain arbitration and held, applying state preemption law, that the Title IX Regulations did not preempt arbitration. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, finding no conflict precluding the union’s grievance procedure.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts. The Court held that the CNA’s grievance procedure is preempted by the 2020 federal Title IX Regulations because those regulations require that any grievance or appeal process must apply equally to both complainant and respondent. The CNA’s arbitration process excluded the alleged victim from participation, granting rights only to the accused. The Court concluded that this inequality creates a direct conflict with federal law, which therefore preempts the CNA’s arbitration provision in this context. The decision is limited to this particular CNA and does not preempt all union grievance procedures. View "In the Matter of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey v. AFSCME Local 888" on Justia Law

Mr. Palmeri began his employment with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1997 and was promoted to the Senior Executive Service (SES) in 2020. He was not informed that joining the DEA SES would affect his appeal rights. In January 2022, the DEA proposed his removal based on alleged misconduct, but before the removal was finalized, Mr. Palmeri retired. The agency stated that, had he not retired, he would have been removed. He then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board), claiming his retirement was involuntary and constituted a constructive removal.The DEA moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that SES employees in the DEA do not have the right to appeal adverse actions to the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 3151. After allowing for discovery and briefing, an Administrative Judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The full Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed and adopted this initial decision, explaining that DEA SES employees can only appeal adverse actions through procedures established by the Attorney General, but no such procedures or regulations have been promulgated.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the Board had jurisdiction over Mr. Palmeri’s appeal. The court held that the governing statutes clearly exclude DEA SES employees from Board appeal rights and require any hearing or appeal to be decided pursuant to regulations issued by the Attorney General, which do not exist. The court rejected arguments that lack of notice or absence of regulations should confer jurisdiction on the Board, and clarified that any constitutional claims must be pursued in a different forum. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "PALMERI v. MSPB " on Justia Law

A corrections officer at the Anamosa State Penitentiary was killed during a prison escape attempt in March 2021, along with a nurse, when two inmates armed themselves with tools from the prison’s machine shop and attacked staff in the infirmary. The inmates were apprehended and convicted of first-degree murder. The officer’s surviving spouse filed compensation claims with the state appeal board against co-employees of the Iowa Department of Corrections, alleging gross negligence contributed to the security lapses that enabled the attack. The claims identified several co-employees by name as potential parties at fault.After the claims were withdrawn due to lack of resolution, the surviving spouse filed suit in the Iowa District Court for Jones County against twenty-six co-employees, including some not previously named in the administrative process. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Iowa’s workers’ compensation law precluded gross negligence claims against state or local government co-employees, that the spouse failed to comply with administrative requirements under the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA), and that the pleading was insufficient under qualified immunity standards. The district court denied the motion on all grounds.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case after treating the appeal as an interlocutory application. The court held that Iowa Code section 85.2 does not bar gross negligence claims against state co-employees; such claims are permissible under section 85.20(2). The court also found that, while the administrative claims process under the ITCA was satisfied as to those co-employees named in the initial claims, it was not satisfied for those not identified. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was properly denied for co-employees named in the administrative claims and should have been granted for those who were not. The denial was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded. View "Montague v. Skinner" on Justia Law

A member of the United States Army National Guard, Stacy Gonzales, worked as a local disease intervention specialist at the Finney County Health Department in Kansas. Her position was funded primarily through Aid-to-Local grants distributed by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), which set substantive job expectations and supervised both state and local disease intervention specialists. Gonzales’s salary and benefits were determined and paid by Finney County, but her day-to-day work, training, and performance evaluations involved significant oversight from KDHE. When KDHE decided not to renew the Aid-to-Local grant in 2010 due to perceived performance deficiencies, Finney County was forced to terminate Gonzales’s position, resulting in her unemployment.The United States filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that KDHE had violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by discriminating against Gonzales based on her military service obligations. Both sides moved for summary judgment on the threshold issue of whether Kansas, through KDHE, was Gonzales’s “employer” under USERRA. The district court granted summary judgment to Kansas, concluding that KDHE was not Gonzales’s employer because it did not have direct authority to hire, fire, supervise, or determine her salary or benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that the definition of “employer” under USERRA includes entities that exercise control over employment opportunities, not limited to direct authority over hiring, firing, or pay. The court found sufficient evidence that KDHE retained significant control over Gonzales’s employment opportunities to preclude summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Department of Health & Environment" on Justia Law

A firefighter employed by a county for over two decades reported safety violations concerning the maintenance of fire extinguishers on county fire engines. After raising these concerns with his superiors, he was barred from working in fire prevention, which he believed was retaliation for his whistleblowing activities. Although he filed internal complaints with the county’s Office of Human Resources and the Civil Service Commission, he withdrew his appeal after assurances that his concerns would be addressed. Later, he was investigated for alleged misconduct and ultimately terminated for violations of county rules. He then filed a claim under the Government Claims Act, which the county rejected.The Superior Court of Kern County granted the county’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the internal administrative remedies—specifically, by not appealing his dismissal to the Civil Service Commission—barred his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit. The court denied the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his complaint, holding that he could not allege exhaustion of remedies.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust the county’s internal administrative remedies before bringing his whistleblower retaliation claims because the county’s ordinances and rules did not provide a clearly defined process for submitting, evaluating, and resolving such claims. The court distinguished between general disciplinary appeals and procedures for discrimination or harassment claims, noting that there was no specific administrative remedy for whistleblower retaliation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter with instructions to deny the county’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The holding clarifies that, where an internal administrative process does not address a particular type of claim, exhaustion of that process is not required before filing suit. View "Romero v. County of Kern" on Justia Law

A registered nurse who worked for the Indian Health Service during the COVID-19 pandemic claimed that she and similarly situated nurses were required by supervisors to work overtime without compensation. After resigning, she filed a class action lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging, among other things, that the government violated the federal overtime statute by failing to pay for overtime that was allegedly induced by supervisors. Specifically, she argued that the statutory requirement for overtime to be “officially ordered or approved” should cover such induced overtime, even in the absence of written authorization.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed all counts of her complaint for failure to state a claim. With respect to the overtime claim (Count II), the court found that she did not allege that she or any potential class members had written authorization for their overtime, as required by the relevant Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the validity of the OPM’s regulation that requires overtime orders or approvals to be in writing, in light of the statutory language and recent Supreme Court precedent on agency rulemaking authority. The court held that the statute delegates to OPM the authority to prescribe necessary regulations for administering the overtime pay statute, and that this includes the discretion to require written authorization as part of the “officially ordered or approved” process. The court concluded that the writing requirement is a valid exercise of OPM’s rulemaking authority and does not contradict the statute. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of the overtime claim and remanded the remaining claims to the original panel for further consideration. View "Lesko v. United States" on Justia Law

Several current and former employees of the City of Chicago, including police officers and an emergency management officer, challenged the City’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The policy, issued in October 2021, required city employees to either be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo regular testing and report their status through an employee portal. Religious exemptions from vaccination were available and granted to these plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs objected to having to submit their vaccination status and test results in the portal, arguing that this reporting requirement violated their constitutional and statutory rights.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (IRFRA). The district court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. It found the Title VII claims factually implausible and concluded that the plaintiffs did not allege a religious practice conflicting with the reporting requirements. The court also held that, since the plaintiffs were granted their requested exemptions from vaccination, they could not succeed on claims based on their refusal to comply with reporting requirements.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the policy’s reporting requirements were neutral and generally applicable, subject only to rational-basis review, which the policy satisfied. The court determined that the reporting and disciplinary provisions were rationally related to the City’s legitimate interest in public health and workplace safety. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all constitutional, statutory, and state-law claims, finding the plaintiffs’ arguments insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. View "Kondilis v City of Chicago" on Justia Law