Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Dominique Robison, a bus operator for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), was suspended from her job after bringing her own bottle of urine to a scheduled drug test, which was deemed an automatic failure under WMATA’s policy. She was suspended without pay for 180 days and subsequently filed for unemployment benefits, which were initially granted by the claims examiner due to WMATA's failure to provide evidence of misconduct.WMATA appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), where an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Robison had committed simple misconduct, not gross misconduct, and was disqualified from benefits for the first eight weeks of her unemployment. The ALJ reasoned that Robison’s violation was her first drug-related offense and that WMATA’s decision to suspend rather than terminate her undercut the severity of the offense. The ALJ did not consider WMATA’s argument that Robison was ineligible for benefits because she was merely suspended, not terminated.WMATA then appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The court reviewed whether the ALJ made findings of fact on each materially contested issue, whether substantial evidence supported each finding, and whether the ALJ’s conclusions flowed rationally from its findings. The court concluded that Robison’s actions did not rise to the level of gross misconduct, as there was no direct evidence of drug use or impairment, no demonstrable impact on passenger safety or WMATA’s operations, and it was her first offense. The court also determined that Robison was "unemployed" within the meaning of the statute because she was suspended without pay and did not work during the suspension period.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the ALJ’s decision. View "WMATA v. Robison" on Justia Law

AllService Plumbing and Maintenance, Inc. is a small, family-owned plumbing company in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In 2009, a union organizer named Charles LeBlanc began efforts to unionize AllService’s workforce. An employee, Joe Lungrin, opposed the unionization and informed the company’s Vice President, Luke Hall, about LeBlanc’s activities. The union filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold an election among AllService’s employees. After agreeing on an election date, AllService laid off three employees. The union lost the election, and subsequently filed a complaint with the NLRB alleging that AllService violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by surveilling, threatening, and interrogating employees, and by laying off employees due to their union activities.An NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) found in 2011 that AllService violated the NLRA and ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off employees with backpay. AllService did not file timely exceptions, and the NLRB adopted the ALJ’s findings in 2012. A second ALJ calculated damages in 2013, and the NLRB ordered AllService to pay over $100,000. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning in 2014 invalidated the NLRB’s quorum, leading the Board to set aside its decision and dismiss its enforcement petition.In 2022, the NLRB issued a notice to show cause for re-adopting the 2013 ALJ decision, blaming administrative oversight for the delay. AllService objected, citing significant business losses due to floods in 2016 and 2021. The NLRB ignored these objections and adopted the 2013 decision. The NLRB then applied to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for summary enforcement of its 2022 order.The Fifth Circuit denied the NLRB’s request for summary enforcement, finding that the Board failed to prove that enforcement would be equitable. The court held that the Board’s delay and administrative neglect were extraordinary circumstances excusing AllService’s failure to exhaust specific objections. The court also granted AllService’s petition for review, finding that the Board lacked substantial evidence to attribute Lungrin’s activities to AllService and to find that the pre-election layoffs were related to union activity. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Allservice Plumbing" on Justia Law

Dr. Bruce Cairns, a division chief in the Department of Surgery and Medical Director of the Jaycee Burn Center at UNC Hospitals, was sued by Dr. James Hwang, a former surgeon at the UNC Burn Center. Dr. Hwang alleged that Dr. Cairns harassed him and created a hostile work environment, leading to his resignation. The case also involved a complaint filed with the UNC School of Medicine Human Resources Department, accusing Dr. Hwang of inappropriate behavior at a going-away party. Dr. Hwang claimed that Dr. Cairns falsely accused him of misconduct, including touching female coworkers inappropriately.The Superior Court of Durham County denied Dr. Cairns's motion to dismiss, finding that he was not entitled to public official immunity. The court also denied summary judgment, citing conflicting evidence about the origin of the Human Resources complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Dr. Cairns was a public official entitled to immunity and that Dr. Hwang did not provide sufficient evidence of malice.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and determined that Dr. Cairns was not a public official entitled to public official immunity. The court found that his positions as division chief and Medical Director were not created by statute and did not involve the exercise of sovereign power. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the parties' outstanding arguments. View "Hwang v. Cairns" on Justia Law

Tracy Turner, a railway conductor employed by BNSF Railway for fifteen years, failed two vision tests required by federal law in 2020. The first test was the Ishihara 14-plate clinical vision test, which Turner failed due to a color deficiency affecting his perception of red and green. At his request, Turner was given a second vision field test by BNSF’s medical examiner, which he also failed. Consequently, BNSF did not recertify Turner as a conductor, as required by federal regulations.Turner did not appeal the denial of his recertification through the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) administrative review process. Instead, he filed a disability-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which provided him with a right-to-sue letter. Turner then sued BNSF, claiming that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not recertifying him due to his color deficiency. BNSF moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the motion, ruling that Turner was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA and that his claim was precluded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Turner was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA because he failed to obtain the FRA-required certification and did not exhaust the available administrative remedies. The court emphasized that BNSF was bound by federal law and FRA regulations, which mandated the vision tests and certification process. Turner’s failure to pursue the FRA’s appeals process meant he could not establish an essential element of his ADA claim. View "Turner v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law

Kelly Rose, a former cashier at Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued her employer under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), alleging violations of the “suitable seating” provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. After a nine-day bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, and judgment was entered accordingly. Rose appealed, but the judgment was affirmed. Subsequently, Hobby Lobby sought nearly $125,000 in litigation costs as the prevailing party, which the trial court ordered the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to pay, despite the LWDA not participating in the litigation.The LWDA appealed the cost order, raising the issue of whether it could be held liable for litigation costs in a PAGA action where it did not participate. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court concluded that even if a prevailing defendant in a PAGA action is entitled to recover costs under the general cost recovery rule, those costs are not recoverable against the LWDA if it did not participate in the litigation. The court emphasized that the LWDA was not a party to the lawsuit and did not take any action until after the judgment was entered.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order requiring the LWDA to pay Hobby Lobby's litigation costs. The court held that the LWDA, as the real party in interest in a PAGA action, is not liable for costs if it did not intervene or participate in the litigation. The decision clarified that the LWDA's role in PAGA actions does not automatically make it liable for litigation costs incurred by a prevailing defendant. View "Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores" on Justia Law

Diana Penney, a pharmacy technician from 1980 to 2019, filed multiple work-related occupational disease claims due to repetitive activities at her job. She was diagnosed with low back issues, protruding disks in her neck and upper back, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Penney underwent surgeries and stopped working in August 2019 due to pain from these conditions. She sought permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund (the Fund).An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Penney was permanently and totally disabled due to the combined effect of her occupational diseases and awarded her PTD benefits from the Fund. The Fund appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, arguing that the ALJ improperly considered Penney’s preexisting occupational diseases under the relevant statutory category. The Commission disagreed and affirmed the ALJ’s award.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and held that preexisting occupational diseases do not qualify as preexisting disabilities under section 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii)1, which requires the disability to be a “direct result of a compensable injury as defined in section 287.020.” The court noted that section 287.020 encompasses injuries by accident and explicitly excludes occupational diseases. The court emphasized that the legislature’s choice to reference only section 287.020 in the statute indicates an intent to limit qualifying preexisting disabilities to accidental injuries. Consequently, the court reversed the Commission’s decision, ruling that Penney’s preexisting occupational diseases could not be considered in determining her entitlement to PTD benefits from the Fund. View "Treasurer v. Penney" on Justia Law

The case involves the Board of Trustees of a multiemployer pension plan primarily benefitting unionized bakery drivers in New York City, which applied for Special Financial Assistance (SFA) in 2022. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) denied the application, citing the plan's termination in 2016 as a disqualifying factor. The Fund, asserting it was in "critical and declining status," sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the PBGC, agreeing that the plan's termination made it ineligible for SFA. The court also concluded that a terminated plan could not be restored under ERISA, thus affirming the PBGC's denial of the Fund's application.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the SFA statute does not exclude plans based solely on a prior termination. The court found that the statute's reference to "critical and declining status" incorporates the definition from 29 U.S.C. § 1085(b)(6) without importing limitations from other sections. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for the Fund, vacate the PBGC's denial of the SFA application, and remand to the PBGC for reconsideration. View "Bd. of Trs. of the Bakery Drivers Loc. 550 v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation" on Justia Law

A dispute arose regarding the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) rule on when one entity is considered a joint employer of another entity’s employees. The NLRB determined that Google was a joint employer of Cognizant employees working on Google’s YouTube Music platform and ordered both companies to bargain with the employees’ union, the Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers of America, Local 9009 (AWU). Google and Cognizant refused to bargain, leading the NLRB to conclude that this refusal violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The employers petitioned for review, arguing they were not joint employers, but the contract under which the employees provided services to Google expired, rendering the petitions and the Board’s cross-applications for enforcement moot. The Union also petitioned for review, contending that the NLRB’s remedies were insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the expiry of the Google-Cognizant contract meant there was no longer any relationship to support the joint-employer finding, making the case moot. The court dismissed Google’s and Cognizant’s petitions and the Board’s cross-applications as moot and vacated the order below. The court also dismissed as jurisdictionally barred the part of AWU’s petition seeking review of the NLRB’s decision to sever the issue of a make-whole remedy for employees and dismissed as moot those parts of AWU’s petition seeking prospective remedies.The court denied the remainder of AWU’s petition, concluding that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion by ordering only the customary remedies. The court emphasized that the Board’s choice of remedies is primarily within its province and subject to very limited judicial review. View "Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Dr. Blake Vanderlan, a physician at a hospital operated by Jackson HMA, LLC, alleged that the hospital systematically violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). He reported these violations to the Department of Health and Human Services, prompting an investigation by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS confirmed the violations and referred the matter to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for potential civil monetary penalties. Vanderlan then filed a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Jackson HMA, alleging five FCA violations, including a retaliation claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi handled the case initially. The government investigated Vanderlan’s claims but declined to intervene. The case continued for six and a half years, during which the district court severed Vanderlan’s retaliation claims. The government eventually moved to dismiss the qui tam claims, arguing that the lawsuit interfered with administrative settlement negotiations and lacked merit. The district court granted the dismissal based on written filings and reaffirmed its decision after reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in denying Vanderlan an evidentiary hearing, as the FCA only requires a hearing on the briefs. The court also determined that the government’s motion to dismiss fell under Rule 41(a)(1), which allows for dismissal without a court order, and thus, the district court had no discretion to deny the dismissal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the government’s decision to dismiss the case was justified and that the district court applied the correct standard. View "Vanderlan v. Jackson HMA" on Justia Law

James Stefanski, a former employee of Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority, alleged that he was constructively discharged in retaliation for reporting his supervisor's gross negligence. The incident in question involved a 911 call where the supervisor coded the call as "shots fired" instead of "someone shot," resulting in a delayed emergency medical response and the subsequent death of a woman. Stefanski reported his concerns to the director, who dismissed them as a judgment call. Following this, Stefanski experienced increased stress, missed work, and eventually resigned after being suspended for excessive absences, which he believed was a pretext for retaliation.The Saginaw Circuit Court granted summary disposition to the defendant, ruling that reporting gross negligence, a common law violation, was not protected under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA). The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, relying on a precedent that reporting common law violations, such as malpractice, does not fall under the WPA's protections.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the term "law" in the WPA includes the common law. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to determine whether gross negligence is a violation of "a" law under the WPA and whether Stefanski's actions constituted a report under the statute. The Supreme Court emphasized that the WPA should be liberally construed to protect whistleblowers and that excluding common law from its scope would undermine its purpose. View "Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority" on Justia Law