Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A healthcare worker was sprayed in the eye with fluids from an HIV-positive patient. She received preventive treatment and counseling. Her employer initially paid workers' compensation benefits; it later filed a controversion based on its doctor's opinion that the employee was able to return to work. The employee asked for more benefits, but the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim. The employee appealed, but the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board's decision. Because the Supreme Court agreed with the Commission that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, the Court affirmed the Commission's decision.

This case concerned the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA). A class of 320 former and current FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx) delivery drivers (hereinafter Anfinson) filed suit seeking overtime wages under the MWA and reimbursement for uniform expenses under the industrial welfare act (IWA). The dispute with respect to both claims was whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors. The parties disagreed on the correct test to distinguish these categories under the MWA; FedEx argued that the common law right-to-control standard governs while Anfinson contended that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) economic-dependence test controls. The trial court gave the jury a hybrid instruction, focusing the inquiry on FedEx's right to control in light of the economic-dependence factors. The jury determined that the drivers were independent contractors. Anfinson appealed, contending, among other things, that the jury instructions misinformed the jury about the standards for determining worker status and about the requirement that class status and evidence be "common to the class members." The Court of Appeals held that the jury instruction defining the standard for determining worker status was erroneous and prejudicial and reversed. The Court of Appeals further held that the jury instruction on the burden of proof was erroneous because it misled the jury and was prejudicial. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in both respects.

Employee-Respondent Aletha Johnson hurt her back while working for Employer-Appellant Rent-A-Center, Inc. The company contended that the appellate panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission erred by awarding Respondent workers' compensation benefits. The appellate panel found Respondent was disabled and did not constructively refuse light duty work. The Supreme Court found that Respondent qualified as disabled under section 42-1-120 of the South Carolina Code, and affirmed the appellate panel's decision to award benefits.

Kevin Morrison, a resident of Maryland, was born in Jamaica and cannot read or write English. He filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") asserting that Appellee Randstad terminated his employment pursuant to a requirement that its employees read and write English. Two years later, in an amended charge, Morrison asserted that the literacy policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because he has a learning disability. In investigating Morrison’s charges, the EEOC served an administrative subpoena on Randstad, which Randstad resisted, in part. When the EEOC sought judicial enforcement of its subpoena, the district court denied relief. "Once a charge has placed the Commission on notice that a particular employer is (or may be) violating Title VII or the ADA in a particular way, the Commission may access 'virtually any material that might cast light on the allegations against the employer.'" The question was whether and to what extent these materials were "relevant" to the EEOC’s investigation of Morrison’s charges. The district court concluded that none of the requested materials were relevant. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court’s application of an unduly strict standard of relevance amounted to legal error, leading to an abuse of discretion. Applying the correct standard, with deference to the EEOC’s assessment of relevance, the Court concluded that all of the EEOC’s requested materials fell within the broad definition of relevance applicable to EEOC administrative subpoenas, and that the district court’s rejection of the EEOC’s alleged factual nexus "crossed the line" into an assessment of the merits of Morrison’s claim. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 2008, Craig Ali was a police officer for appellant, the village of Oakwood. That spring, his department assigned him to perform traffic-control duties on a highway-construction project overseen by appellee, Kokosing Construction Company, Inc. Ali was injured while performing those duties. At issue was which entity was Ali's employer for purposes of his workers' compensation claim. A district hearing officer with the Industrial Commission of Ohio found that Kokosing was Ali's employer at the time of injury. A staff hearing officer reversed, finding the correct employer was Oakwood Village. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the commission, when confronted with two potential employers, may, but is not required to, use any of the State ex rel. Lord v. Daugherty and Fisher v. Mayfield factors it believes will assist analysis; (2) therefore, the commission did not abuse its discretion by not directly discussing the three enumerated Lord/Fisher factors; and (3) the staff hearing officer's decision was supported by evidence in the record.

Maine Public Employees Retirement System (the System) appealed a superior court judgment reversing a decision of the System’s Board of Trustees that denied Petitioner Ellen Goodrich basic life insurance coverage under the group life insurance plan administered by the System. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's judgment in part and remanded the case for entry of a judgment: (1) vacating the decision of the Board; and (2) remanding to the Board with instructions to provide Goodrich with prospective basic life insurance coverage after she paid back premiums accrued to date.

In these consolidated appeals, the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR) determined that Douglas County committed a prohibited labor practice when it increased union members' monthly health insurance premiums without negotiating. The County appealed, contending that the parties' collective bargaining agreement authorized its unilateral action and that its action did not change the status quo. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed (i) the CIR's determination that the County committed a prohibited labor practice in failing to negotiate health insurance premium increases; and (ii) the CIR's decision not to award attorney fees; but (2) reversed and vacated those portions of the CIR's orders requiring the County to reimburse union members for increased insurance premiums deducted from their wages, plus interest.

The Douglas County Health Center Security Union (Union) filed a petition before the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR) alleging that its employer, Douglas County (County), had engaged in certain prohibited practices. The CIR found the County had engaged in a prohibited practice when it failed to negotiate its intention to contract out bargaining unit work to a private security company. The CIR ordered the parties to recommence negotiation and awarded the Union attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the CIR with directions to vacate its order and dismiss the Union's petition, holding that the issue of the subcontracting of bargaining unit jobs resulting in the elimination of bargaining unit jobs was covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the County and Union and presented an issue of contract interpretation over which the CIR lacked jurisdiction.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dennis Meier appealed a judgment dismissing his appeal from an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ affirmed a decision by the Department of Human Services to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Plaintiff did not properly perfect his appeal because he failed to serve the notice of appeal and specifications of error on Human Resource Management Services.

Petitioner Frances Leon Harvey's appeal before the Tenth Circuit stemmed from a Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA")lawsuit that he brought against the United States government for complications arising from an injury to his hand. Petitioner claimed that government employees injured him by: (1) misdiagnosing and delaying treatment of his hand fracture; and (2) performing negligent surgery on his hand. He argued that the district court erred in holding the misdiagnosis/delay-in treatment claim to be time-barred and in granting summary judgment on the negligent surgery claim for failure to produce expert evidence. Furthermore, Petitioner argued because Navajo law was the substantive law of this case, the district court failed to follow Navajo law when it dismissed his negligent surgery claim. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court properly denied Petitioner's motion for default judgment. Although the Court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the misdiagnosis claim was time-barred, the Court concluded that Petitioner's failure to provide expert evidence doomed both his misdiagnosis and surgical malpractice claims. Finally, although the parties disagreed about whether Arizona law or Navajo law applied, the Court did not reach the issue because the outcome would have been the same under both.