Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on the pay due to a state employee pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement when the employee temporarily takes on duties at a higher level. Grievant Christopher Spear appealed a decision of the Vermont Labor Relations Board that the State, as grievant’s employer, did not violate the nonmanagement unit collective bargaining agreement between the Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA) and the employer when it provided grievant with “higher assignment pay” of a flat five percent of his regular pay rather than placing, or “slotting,” him to a step in the pay grade associated with the higher assignment duties that was at least five percent higher than his regular pay. The Board found the agreement’s provision governing higher-assignment pay ambiguous and concluded, based on the evidence presented, that the parties intended to calculate higher-assignment pay using a flat rate without slotting. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Spear" on Justia Law

After the Town of Islip discontinued the practice of permanently assigning Town-owned vehicles, or “take home” vehicles, to certain employees, the union representing the employees declared that employee use of a Town-owned vehicle for personal purposes was a mandatory subject of bargaining and filed an improper practice charge with the New York State Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB determined that the Town violated N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 209-a(1)(d) by canceling “take home” vehicle assignments without negotiation. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding that PERB reasonably determined that the Town engaged in an improper practice when it unilaterally discontinued the permanent assignment of “take home” vehicles to employees. View "Town of Islip v. State Pub. Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

While working for Vista Care (Employer), appellant Sherrie Fowler suffered a back injury. Appellant began receiving TTD and subsequently underwent back surgery. Several years later, a physician determined that appellant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). This case began when appellant filed a complaint with the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) in 2010, for reinstatement of her TTD benefits and for an increase in her PPD rating. The Court of Appeals held that the Act limited appellant's eligibility for TTD benefits to 700 weeks of benefits and reversed a contrary decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administration judge. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the Act imposed no such limitation; TTD benefits are payable during any period of total disability for the remainder of a worker’s life. View "Fowler v. Vista Care" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Delaware Supreme Court arose out of a situation where a police officer retired while his conduct was under investigation by his employing police force. After the officer retired, the Council on Police Training revoked his certification as a police officer in the State of Delaware on the grounds that the officer’s retirement itself constituted a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to a hearing under the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court concluded that because the plain language of section 8404(a)(4)(e) provided that the Council could only revoke the certification of a retired officer if the officer both retired pending the resolution of an investigation that could have resulted in his discharge from the police force and “knowingly and voluntarily waived” his right to a hearing under the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights, the Council erred. The Superior Court’s reversal of the Council’s revocation of his certification was affirmed. View "Council on Police Training v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were retired public employees who received a retirement allowances from the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System (MTRS) and the Plymouth County Retirement System pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32. Plaintiffs filed an action against the Town of Middleborough, arguing that the board of selectmen did not have the authority to raise the health maintenance organization (HMO) premium contribution percentage for retired public employees from ten percent to twenty percent. The trial judge allowed Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32B, 16, the town’s board of selectmen has the authority to establish the percentage of the total monthly premium for HMO coverage that is to be paid by the town’s retired employees. View "Twomey v. Town of Middleborough" on Justia Law

Erin Clements was injured at work and received temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for twelve months. Clements subsequently obtained an extension of TTD benefits for the statutory maximum of twelve months. When Clements applied for additional TTD benefits, the Worker’s Safety and Compensation Division denied her claim because she had received all the TTD benefits to which she was entitled under Wyoming law and Division rules. Clements filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the Division exceeded its authority when it limited the extension of TTD benefits to twelve months. The district court granted declaratory relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Division exceeded its authority when it adopted a rule setting a maximum number of months TTD benefits are payable under any circumstances. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs. v. Clements" on Justia Law

Dr. Collie Trant was the former Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Oklahoma at a time the office was recovering from a series of public scandals. Trant lost the confidence of the Oklahoma Board of Medicolegal Investigations, and was terminated. Trant filed suit in Oklahoma state court alleging a number of claims under federal and state law in connection with his tenure and termination. Oklahoma subsequently consented to removal of the case to federal court. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Trant’s First Amendment retaliation claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed for lack of standing Trant’s claim seeking a declaratory judgment the Board violated the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act. The court also dismissed Trant’s breach of implied contract claim for failure to state a claim under Oklahoma law. Finding no reversible error with respect to the district court's decision on Trant's First Amendment and breach of implied contract claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. With regard to Trant's declaratory judgment claim, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Trant v. Medicolegal Investigations, et al" on Justia Law

Employer terminated Employee for falsifying his doctor’s return-to-work certificate. Employee sought unemployment benefits, but the Division of Employment Security denied the application on the ground that Employee had been fired for misconduct connected with his work. The Labor and Industrial Commission affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not err in denying benefits, as (1) willfulness is not required for all forms of misconduct; (2) Employee disregarded a standards of behavior that Employer had a right to expect from its employees; and (3) Employee’s misconduct was “connected to” his work. View "Seck v. Div. of Employment Sec." on Justia Law

David Alba was appointed to serve as principal of an elementary school in Cranston, Rhode Island. Alba and the Cranston School Committee subsequently entered into an employment contract. Later, after a hearing, the Committee rejected a recommendation to renew Alba’s employment contract. Alba appealed the Committee’s decision. The Commissioner of Education denied and dismissed Alba’s appeal, concluding that Alba had received all the process to which he was entitled under the contract and the School Administrators’ Rights Act. The Board of Regents affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Committee acted within its authority when it voted against the recommendation to renew Alba’s contract; and (2) the Committee’s nonrenewal of Alba’s contract did not deprive Alba of his rights under the Administrators’ Rights Act. View "Alba v. Cranston Sch. Comm." on Justia Law

Appellant, an over-the-road truck driver, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that he sustained injuries in the form of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in an accident that occurred during the course and scope of his employment. The compensation court applied a split test of causation used in heart attack cases, which requires proof of both legal and medical causation. The court then dismissed Appellant’s claim for failure to establish the medical cause prong. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Appellant’s claim, holding (1) the split test was properly applied to Appellant’s injuries in this case, as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism present the same difficulties in attributing the cause of a heart attack to a claimant’s work and are similar in origin to a heart attack; and (2) the compensation court’s finding as to causation was not clearly wrong. View "Wingfield v. Hill Bros. Transp., Inc." on Justia Law