Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

The case involves a dispute between Judge Kerry L. Burman, the Glendive City Judge, and Mayor Deb Dion of Glendive, Montana. Judge Burman petitioned for a writ of mandamus to reinstate Mary York to her position as Clerk of Glendive City Court after Mayor Dion terminated York's employment. The termination occurred following a disagreement over the justification for York's attendance at a training conference. York was terminated without notice and escorted out of the court, leaving unfinished work and causing operational disruptions.The District Court initially ordered York's interim reinstatement pending further review. Judge Burman argued that Mayor Dion's actions violated state statute, the court's holding in Carlson v. City of Bozeman, and the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Respondents contended that Mayor Dion had the statutory authority to terminate York, who was still in her probationary period, and that the court's operations were not significantly impaired.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court determined that the matter was more appropriately characterized as an application for a writ of prohibition rather than mandamus. The court found that Mayor Dion's actions disrupted the court's operations and violated § 3-1-111, MCA, which grants courts the authority to control their ministerial officers. The court held that the executive's authority to hire or fire employees must be exercised in a manner that does not impair the court's ability to conduct its business.The Supreme Court of Montana granted the petition for a writ of prohibition, arresting Mayor Dion's action of terminating York's employment. The court emphasized the need for coordination between branches of government to avoid such disruptions. View "Burman v. City of Glendive" on Justia Law

A group of non-convicted individuals detained in Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail filed a lawsuit against Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Alameda County, and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern. The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay under California’s Labor Code for work performed without pay for Aramark while detained. The defendants moved to dismiss these claims, arguing that the plaintiffs' compensation was governed by the California Penal Code, which allows counties to pay prisoners at rates below minimum wage.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the minimum wage and overtime claims, holding that the California Penal Code did not preclude non-convicted detainees working for a private company from the protections of the Labor Code. The district court allowed the plaintiffs' claims to proceed, leading the defendants to file an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and certified a question to the California Supreme Court regarding whether non-convicted detainees working for a private company in county jails have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. The California Supreme Court responded that such detainees do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under Section 1194 of the California Labor Code. The court clarified that section 4019.3 of the California Penal Code applies broadly to all county inmates, including pretrial detainees, and does not depend on the identity of the employer.Based on the California Supreme Court's response, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' minimum wage and overtime claims. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims failed under the current law and reversed the district court's decision. View "RUELAS V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA" on Justia Law

The case involves Business and Professions Code section 7451, enacted through Proposition 22, which classifies app-based drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash as independent contractors rather than employees, provided certain conditions are met. This classification exempts these drivers from California workers’ compensation laws, which typically apply to employees. Plaintiffs, including several individuals and unions, argue that section 7451 conflicts with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, which grants the Legislature plenary power to create and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation.The Alameda County Superior Court found Proposition 22 unconstitutional, reasoning that it improperly limited the Legislature’s power to govern workers’ compensation, a power deemed "unlimited" by the state Constitution. The court held that the people must amend the Constitution through an initiative constitutional amendment, not an initiative statute, to impose such limitations. Consequently, the court invalidated Proposition 22 in its entirety.The California Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that article XIV, section 4 does not preclude the electorate from using its initiative power to legislate on workers’ compensation matters. The court reasoned that the Legislature’s power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and that Proposition 22 does not conflict with this constitutional provision. The court did, however, affirm the invalidation of certain severable provisions of Proposition 22 not at issue in this appeal.The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment, agreeing that section 7451 does not conflict with article XIV, section 4. The court held that the Legislature’s plenary power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and does not preclude the electorate from enacting legislation through the initiative process. The court did not address whether other provisions of Proposition 22 improperly constrain the Legislature’s authority, as those issues were not presented in this case. View "Castellanos v. State of California" on Justia Law

Enright Seeding, Inc. is involved in a dispute with the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, regarding the nature of their collective bargaining agreement. Enright Seeding, a construction industry subcontractor, signed a bargaining agreement with the union in 2007, which included language suggesting it was a § 9(a) agreement under the National Labor Relations Act, indicating majority employee support for the union. The company later claimed that its obligations ended when it repudiated the contract in 2016. The union, however, argued that the agreement was a § 9(a) agreement and that the company violated the Act by not providing requested information.An administrative law judge determined that the agreement was a § 9(a) agreement and that Enright Seeding violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to provide the requested information. The judge also concluded that even if the agreement was under § 8(f), the company did not clearly repudiate it. A three-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirmed this decision, focusing on the § 9(a) status and not addressing the repudiation issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the NLRB's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as there was no actual evidence of majority employee support for the union in 2007, only boilerplate contract language. The court emphasized that all evidence must be considered to determine the status of the relationship, and mere contract language is insufficient. The court also rejected the argument that Enright Seeding was barred from disputing the agreement's status due to the six-month limitation period in § 10(b) of the Act.The Eighth Circuit vacated the NLRB's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, without expressing a view on whether Enright Seeding had effectively repudiated the agreement or whether the union was entitled to the requested information under a § 8(f) agreement. View "NLRB v. Enright Seeding, Inc." on Justia Law

Brian Ambroise, a Senior Correctional Police Officer at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, faced disciplinary charges from the Department of Corrections (DOC) in December 2020. The charges included conduct unbecoming a public employee and undue familiarity with inmates, stemming from allegations that Ambroise had a sexual relationship with an inmate, J.O., and performed favors for her, such as bringing in contraband and passing messages. Ambroise admitted to kissing J.O. and failing to report it, as well as passing a message between inmates.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) modified the DOC’s penalty from removal to a twenty-day suspension, sustaining only the charge of failing to report the kiss and dismissing the others. The DOC appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which affirmed the ALJ’s finding on the failure to report but reversed the dismissal of the undue familiarity charge. The Commission imposed a six-month suspension, considering Ambroise’s previously unblemished record and the seriousness of his conduct.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the Commission’s decision to be arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The Court held that the Commission failed to adequately consider the DOC’s expertise in maintaining prison security and the seriousness of Ambroise’s offenses. The Court emphasized that Ambroise’s failure to report the kiss and his undue familiarity with inmates compromised prison security and discipline. Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and reinstated the DOC’s recommended sanction of removal, remanding the case to the Commission to redetermine the penalty in accordance with the Court’s decision. View "In the Matter of Brian Ambroise" on Justia Law