Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Restaurant Law Center and the Texas Restaurant Association challenging a final rule by the Department of Labor (DOL) that restricts when employers can claim a "tip credit" for "tipped employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The tip credit allows employers to pay tipped employees a lower hourly wage, assuming tips will make up the difference to meet the minimum wage. The DOL's final rule imposes limits on the amount of non-tip-producing work a tipped employee can perform while still allowing the employer to claim the tip credit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, stating they would not suffer irreparable harm. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs had shown irreparable harm and remanded the case for further consideration. On remand, the district court evaluated the merits and granted summary judgment in favor of the DOL, holding that the final rule was a permissible interpretation of the FLSA under Chevron deference and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the final rule was contrary to the clear statutory text of the FLSA and was arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the FLSA's definition of a "tipped employee" does not support the DOL's restrictions on non-tip-producing work. The court concluded that the final rule improperly focused on the pursuit of tips rather than the duties of the occupation itself. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the DOL, rendered summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and vacated the final rule. View "Restaurant Law Center v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

The petitioner worked part-time as a bus fueler and washer at Marble Valley Regional Transit (MVRT) for approximately four years. He passed a preemployment drug screen and signed an acknowledgment of MVRT’s drug and alcohol policy, which included random drug testing and termination for a positive drug test. In December 2022, he tested positive for marijuana during a random drug test and was terminated in January 2023 for violating U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations. The petitioner had a medical marijuana card issued in early 2020.The petitioner applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied by a claims adjudicator on the grounds of misconduct. He appealed to an administrative law judge (ALJ), who affirmed the denial but reduced the disqualification period to six weeks, recognizing the medical use of cannabis. The petitioner then filed a document with the Employment Security Board, seeking a declaratory ruling on the applicability of the misconduct disqualification provision to off-duty medical cannabis use. The Board treated this as an appeal and affirmed the ALJ’s decision, stating that the petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct under MVRT’s drug policy.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Board’s decision. The Court held that the Board properly declined to issue a declaratory ruling because the petitioner had an available remedy through a direct appeal. The Court emphasized that declaratory rulings are not a substitute for timely appeals of agency decisions. The petitioner’s appeal of the Board’s decision was dismissed as untimely, and the Court affirmed the Board’s order declining to issue a declaratory ruling. View "Skoric v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Hunter Smith, a phlebotomist employed by Laboratory Corp of America (Labcorp), sustained a work-related back injury on January 27, 2021, when a shelving unit fell on his head. This incident led to acute lower back injuries requiring surgery. Despite the surgery, Smith continued to experience significant pain and other symptoms. Medical evaluations by Dr. Gregory Lanford and Dr. Jules Barefoot assessed a 24% permanent impairment rating, attributing 19% to the work injury and 5% to pre-existing conditions. Dr. Michael Best, however, disagreed, attributing all of Smith's back issues to pre-existing conditions and assessing a 10% impairment rating.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded Smith permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, accepting Dr. Best's 10% impairment rating but attributing 5% to the work injury. The ALJ also awarded benefits for Smith's psychological condition based on a 20% impairment rating by Dr. Robert Sivley, despite Labcorp's contention that this rating was improperly based on a conditional impairment rating.Labcorp appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, arguing that the ALJ improperly relied on Dr. Sivley's rating and should have accepted Dr. Trivette's 0% rating. Smith cross-appealed, arguing that the ALJ misapplied the AMA Guides and should not have admitted Dr. Best's report. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, and both parties appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the Board's decision.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the ALJ's reliance on Dr. Sivley's impairment rating was justified and that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Court found no compelling reason to disturb the ALJ's findings, as they were not clearly erroneous. View "LABORATORY CORP. OF AMERICA V. HUNTER SMITH" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of a hospital operated by Alameda Health System (AHS), alleged that AHS violated California labor laws by denying meal and rest breaks, failing to keep accurate payroll records, and not paying full wages. They sought civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).The Alameda County Superior Court sustained AHS’s demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that AHS, as a public entity, was not subject to the Labor Code provisions cited by plaintiffs. The court also dismissed the PAGA claim, reasoning that public entities are not “persons” subject to PAGA penalties.The California Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that AHS was not exempt from the meal and rest break requirements or the wage payment statutes. It distinguished AHS from state agencies, noting that the enabling statute indicated AHS was not an agency, division, or department of the county. However, the court agreed that AHS was exempt from the wage statement requirements and that it was not a “person” subject to default PAGA penalties.The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It held that the Legislature intended to exempt public employers, including hospital authorities like AHS, from the Labor Code provisions governing meal and rest breaks and related wage payment statutes. The Court also concluded that public entities are not subject to PAGA penalties for the violations alleged. The case was remanded to the trial court to reinstate its ruling on the demurrer and conduct any further proceedings as appropriate. View "Stone v. Alameda Health System" on Justia Law

The case involves an unfair labor practice dispute between Rieth-Riley Construction Co., a highway construction contractor in Michigan, and Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. The dispute centers on subcontracting and employee wages. The last collective-bargaining agreement expired on May 31, 2018, and despite multiple bargaining sessions, no successor agreement has been reached. The Union went on strike on July 31, 2019, and picketing incidents ensued, including an altercation where a striking union member, Michael Feighner, assaulted a truck driver, Karl Grinstern.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel issued complaints against both parties: against the Union for picketing misconduct and against Rieth-Riley for failing to provide requested subcontracting and employee information. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Rieth-Riley violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by not providing the requested information and that the Union violated the NLRA when Feighner assaulted Grinstern. The ALJ ordered Rieth-Riley to provide the requested information and the Union to cease and desist from such misconduct. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision with a slight modification.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that President Biden lawfully removed the NLRB General Counsel, and the General Counsel had unreviewable prosecutorial discretion. The court found substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusions that the requested information was relevant to the Union’s bargaining responsibilities and that Rieth-Riley’s refusal to provide it violated the NLRA. The court also upheld the finding that the Union’s assault on Grinstern was an unfair labor practice. The court denied Rieth-Riley’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement of its order in full. View "Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Three licensed substance use disorder professionals, referred to as the Counselors, were employed by NCG Acquisition, LLC and NCG CARE, Inc. They allege that they were wrongfully terminated after attempting to ensure a client received appropriate care. The Counselors had recommended that a client in severe distress be moved to inpatient treatment, but their supervisor, Jessica Tewell, altered their recommendation, preventing the client from receiving the necessary care. The client subsequently died of a drug overdose. The Counselors reported their concerns internally and were terminated shortly thereafter.The Counselors filed a lawsuit in the Western District of North Carolina, claiming wrongful termination in violation of public policy under the North Carolina Substance Use Disorder Professional Practice Act (SUDPPA) and its regulations. The district court dismissed their complaint, concluding that while SUDPPA constitutes an expression of public policy, the Counselors failed to allege a plausible claim that their termination contravened specific SUDPPA regulations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that SUDPPA and its regulations indeed represent the public policy of North Carolina. The Counselors plausibly alleged that their termination was in retaliation for actions taken in compliance with their professional obligations under SUDPPA, such as protecting client welfare and maintaining accurate records. The court concluded that the Counselors' actions were consistent with their professional duties and that their termination violated the public policy of North Carolina. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Shook v. NCG Acquisition, LLC" on Justia Law

In two separate cases, employees Terry J. Leal and Dustin Kopp sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries they claimed were work-related. Ms. Leal's claim involved a right shoulder injury, while Mr. Kopp's claim involved an abdominal hernia. Both claims were initially denied by the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers’ Compensation Division, which concluded that the injuries were not caused by their work activities. The employees contested these decisions, leading to hearings before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).In both cases, the OAH appointed attorneys to represent the employees. These attorneys hired medical experts to testify on the causation of the injuries. Ms. Leal's attorney hired Dr. Gregory Reichhardt, and Mr. Kopp's attorney hired Dr. Douglas Adler. The OAH found in favor of the employees, awarding them workers' compensation benefits. However, when the attorneys sought reimbursement for the medical expert fees, the OAH denied these requests, citing a lack of statutory authority under the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act to order such reimbursements.The employees appealed to the District Court of Laramie County, which certified the cases to the Wyoming Supreme Court. The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed whether the OAH had the authority to order reimbursement of medical expert fees. The Court concluded that the OAH does have such authority. It reasoned that the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act, when read as a whole, provides for the payment of costs, including expert witness fees, to ensure the quick and efficient delivery of benefits to injured workers at a reasonable cost to employers. The Court found that the OAH's decision to deny reimbursement was not in accordance with the law and reversed the OAH's decision. View "Leal v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services" on Justia Law

Noncitizen laborers were brought into the United States to work for construction subcontractor defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants fraudulently applied for B-1 employment visas, which cost less than the petition-based visas they should have applied for, thereby violating the False Claims Act (FCA). Additionally, one plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Prevention Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) by threatening prosecution and suing him to coerce other workers to continue working.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the defendants did not have an "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas because they never applied for them, thus no legal obligation existed under the FCA. The court also dismissed the TVPRA claim, finding that the plaintiff did not allege that the defendants' actions coerced him to provide any labor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the defendants had no "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas since they did not apply for them, and thus did not violate the FCA. The court also upheld the dismissal of the TVPRA claim, concluding that the plaintiff did not state a claim because the defendants' actions did not coerce him to provide any labor. The court's main holding was that potential liability for applying for the wrong visas does not constitute an "established duty" to pay under the FCA, and that the TVPRA claim failed because the plaintiff was not coerced into providing labor. The decision was affirmed. View "LESNIK V. ISM VUZEM D.O.O." on Justia Law

Jeffrey Harmon and David Beasley, longtime employees of the City of Cincinnati and members of a city-employees union, were placed on leave under a Temporary Emergency Leave (TEL) program implemented in April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. They used accrued paid leave during this period and appealed the city's decision to the Cincinnati Civil Service Commission, arguing that the city had not followed proper layoff procedures. The commission determined that the TEL program was not a layoff and denied their request for a hearing, instead holding an "appearance."Harmon and Beasley appealed the commission's decision to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the commission's determination and remanded the matter for a hearing. The city appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, arguing that the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction because the matter was governed by the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) and the commission's decision was not the result of a quasi-judicial proceeding. The First District held that the common pleas court had jurisdiction under the CBA and R.C. 2506.01, as the commission's decision was an adjudication from a quasi-judicial proceeding.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the First District's judgment. The court held that Harmon and Beasley had a right to appeal the commission’s decision under R.C. 2506.01 and were not precluded by R.C. 4117.10. The court determined that the commission was required to hold a hearing under the Cincinnati Civil Service Rules, and its failure to do so did not divest the common pleas court of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the commission's decision was the result of a quasi-judicial proceeding, thus allowing the appeal to the common pleas court. View "Harmon v. Cincinnati" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the constitutionality of "release time" provisions in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Phoenix and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2384. These provisions allow certain employees to be released from their regular duties, while still being paid by the City, to perform union activities. The plaintiffs, who are non-union employees, argued that these provisions violate their free-speech, free-association, and right-to-work rights, as well as the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment in favor of the City and the Union, finding that the release time provisions did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights because the City, not the employees, paid for the release time. The court also found that the provisions did not violate the Gift Clause, as they served a public purpose and were supported by adequate consideration. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the provisions did not violate the plaintiffs' rights and were supported by adequate consideration.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the release time provisions do not violate the free-speech, free-association, or right-to-work rights of the plaintiffs because the City pays for the release time. However, the Court found that the provisions violate the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution. The Court determined that the release time provisions do not provide adequate consideration to the City, as the benefits to the City are negligible compared to the substantial costs. Consequently, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion, reversed the Superior Court's decision, and remanded the case for the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the Gift Clause claim. View "GILMORE v. GALLEGO" on Justia Law