Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

California officials challenged a determination by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) that California’s meal and rest break (MRB) rules, as applied to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles, were preempted by federal law. The MRB rules require employers to provide drivers with specified meal and rest periods during the workday. The FMCSA concluded that these state rules regulated commercial motor vehicle safety, were more stringent than federal hours-of-service (HOS) regulations, and imposed requirements not found in federal law.Previously, in 2019, the American Bus Association petitioned the FMCSA to preempt California’s MRB rules for passenger-carrying drivers. After public notice and comment, the FMCSA issued a final order in 2020 preempting these rules, finding they added no measurable safety benefit beyond federal HOS rules, were incompatible with federal regulations, and placed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. California officials petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the FMCSA’s preemption decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the FMCSA’s action under the highly deferential standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. It held that its earlier decision in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 986 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2021), foreclosed California’s main arguments and confirmed that the FMCSA had authority to preempt the MRB rules. The court also held that the FMCSA’s determination that the MRB rules imposed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce was supported by the administrative record and not arbitrary or capricious. The petition for review was denied, and the FMCSA’s preemption determination was upheld. View "PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CAL. V. FMCSA" on Justia Law

An off-duty police officer in the District of Columbia shot and seriously injured a man outside a residence in Maryland after suspecting an attempted vehicle break-in. The officer did not call 911 as trained, confronted the individual, and used deadly force, although no weapon or evidence of crime was found on the victim. Following internal reviews, the police department sought to terminate the officer. His union invoked arbitration, as allowed by the collective bargaining agreement.An arbitrator determined that the officer’s conduct was reckless, violated departmental policies, and met the definition of reckless endangerment under Maryland law. However, the arbitrator concluded that termination was not warranted and reduced the discipline to a 45-day suspension, referencing a prior similar case involving another officer. The District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) sustained this sanction. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia affirmed PERB’s decision. On a prior appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals remanded the case, directing PERB to further explain its reasoning regarding whether the arbitral award was contrary to law or public policy.After PERB again upheld the arbitrator’s decision on remand and the Superior Court affirmed, the case returned to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The court reviewed whether the arbitral award was “on its face contrary to law and public policy.” The court held that the award was not contrary to law because the arbitrator did not purport to apply and misapply the Douglas factors, nor was the penalty so disproportionate as to be illegal. The court further held that the award was not contrary to public policy, noting the absence of a statutory or regulatory mandate requiring termination under these circumstances and emphasizing the narrow grounds for overturning arbitral awards on public policy. The court affirmed the judgment upholding PERB’s decision. View "District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dep't v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two unions representing Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees and the VA itself, along with the VA Secretary. The core issue centers on the VA’s termination of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that was signed in August 2023 and set to last three years. The termination followed a March 2025 executive order by President Trump that excluded the VA from coverage under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), citing national security. The VA Secretary then terminated the CBA, prompting the unions to file suit, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment.Prior to this case, unions not party here challenged the executive order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which issued a preliminary injunction. That injunction was later stayed and ultimately vacated on appeal by the Ninth Circuit. In the present case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction requiring the VA to reinstate the CBA and later issued an enforcement order when the VA attempted to re-terminate the agreement. The district court found that the termination was likely retaliatory and arbitrary and capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed requests to stay both the preliminary injunction and the enforcement order. The First Circuit denied the VA’s request to stay the preliminary injunction, finding the VA had not made a strong showing of likely success on appeal. However, the court granted a partial stay of the enforcement order, holding that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to order specific compliance with every term of the CBA under threat of contempt. The court otherwise denied the VA’s requests. View "American Federation of Gov't Employees Local 2305 v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

A state trooper was hired in 2016 and terminated in 2019 after an internal investigation found he had altered his timecard to accommodate an additional extra-duty detail shift, violating department policy. The termination was also based on his conduct during the investigation. After his termination, the employee moved out of state and did not return to his position even after subsequent legal proceedings.The employee appealed his termination to the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board (PAB), which found the termination was not warranted by the conduct and was unjust. The PAB reinstated him with a twenty-day suspension without pay and found him credible, though it noted poor judgment and time management. The Division of State Police appealed the reinstatement to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, which affirmed the PAB’s decision. After reinstatement, the parties disagreed over whether the employee was entitled to back pay and benefits. The PAB clarified that the reinstatement included back pay, less mitigation and the suspension period. A further dispute arose over whether this back pay should include expected overtime; the PAB ultimately awarded the employee anticipated overtime back pay based on an average of prior overtime earnings. The Division’s motion for rehearing was denied, prompting this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed whether the PAB had authority under RSA 273-D:3, V to award overtime back pay as part of “salary loss suffered.” The court held that the statute limits mandatory reinstatement awards to fixed compensation (“salary”) and does not include speculative amounts like overtime. Therefore, the PAB lacked authority to award overtime back pay. The Court reversed the PAB’s decision and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Appeal of N.H. Div. of State Police" on Justia Law

An employee of the United States Postal Service (USPS) worked as an Operations Industrial Engineer beginning in 2013. He alleged that, shortly after starting, he was harassed by a mentor on the basis of his national origin, race, and religion, and that after he complained, his work environment became more hostile. He also claimed to have faced retaliation for whistleblowing about safety violations and wastefulness. Over time, he received a Letter of Warning, was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, and issued a Letter of Concern, all of which he believed were retaliatory. The situation resulted in medical issues, leading him to take medical leave, request reasonable accommodation, and ultimately remain on leave for several months. During this time, he filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint, and while it was pending, he resigned, attributing his departure to the intolerable environment and alleged retaliation.The EEOC eventually granted summary judgment in favor of USPS, finding no evidence of unlawful discrimination or that the employee suffered an adverse employment action. Nearly four years after resigning and shortly after the EEOC’s decision, he appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board), asserting that his resignation was involuntary due to duress and coercion by USPS. The Board’s administrative judge found that he failed to non-frivolously allege that his resignation was coerced, misinformed, or otherwise involuntary, noting he could have continued to pursue remedies instead of resigning. The Board affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case to determine if the employee had made non-frivolous allegations of involuntary resignation that would entitle him to a hearing. The court held that he had not, emphasizing that the facts did not show the agency effectively imposed his resignation or deprived him of reasonable alternatives. The court affirmed the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "TAVAKKOL v. MSPB " on Justia Law

A former court reporter who worked for nearly four decades for a California county discovered, as she approached retirement, that the county had failed to enroll her in the state retirement system (CalPERS) for several years early in her employment. Upon learning this, she attempted to secure a complete employment record from the county, which CalPERS required to adjust her retirement benefits. The county failed to provide complete records, reportedly due to records being lost or destroyed, and provided only incomplete information to CalPERS. This left her unable to purchase prior service credit or receive full retirement benefits, causing her financial harm and forcing her to delay retirement.After filing a claim with the county and receiving no response, the plaintiff brought multiple causes of action in the Humboldt County Superior Court, including alleged violations of statutory duties and negligence against the county and individual employees. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers, dismissing all statutory claims without leave to amend and granting leave to amend only the negligence claim. When the plaintiff submitted an amended complaint limited to negligence, the trial court again sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding no statutory duty supported the claim.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiff had stated valid causes of action against the county for violation of mandatory statutory duties to maintain personnel records and to enroll eligible employees in CalPERS under Government Code section 815.6. The court also held, in an unpublished portion, that the plaintiff stated a viable negligence claim against the individual defendants, with the county potentially vicariously liable. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of these claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gibbs v. County of Humboldt" on Justia Law

An employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), serving as an Associate Director, was removed from his position following allegations of inappropriate conduct, including harassment and creating a hostile work environment. After the agency conducted an investigation and found lapses in professionalism, the acting director proposed removal based on these findings. The employee, who had previously raised concerns about personnel decisions and filed whistleblower complaints, alleged that his removal was in retaliation for his protected disclosures and challenged the process as procedurally flawed.The initial challenge was reviewed by an administrative judge of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), who sustained the charge of inappropriate conduct, finding that the VA had proved its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The administrative judge also found that, although the employee engaged in protected whistleblower activity, the VA demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it would have removed him regardless of his disclosures. Additionally, the administrative judge found no harmful procedural error in the agency’s investigation and removal process. The full MSPB denied the employee’s petition for review, adopting the administrative judge’s findings and affirming the removal.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the MSPB’s decision. The court applied the appropriate standards of review, considering whether the agency’s actions were supported by substantial evidence and adhered to proper legal procedures. The court held that substantial evidence supported the findings that the VA would have removed the employee independent of his whistleblower activity and that there was no harmful procedural error in the removal process. The Federal Circuit affirmed the MSPB’s decision, upholding the removal. View "OLIVA v. DVA " on Justia Law

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