Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In the State of North Dakota, Dale Kringlie suffered a work-related injury to his right shoulder and wrist while using a concrete drill in April 2019. Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) accepted the claim and paid the associated medical expenses and disability benefits. WSI later issued a vocational rehabilitation plan for Kringlie, which he contested, asserting his inability to perform any of the jobs due to a neuropsychological condition. Kringlie sought the opinion of Dr. Swenson, who supported his claim. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reversed WSI’s decision, basing his judgment heavily on Dr. Swenson's opinion. WSI appealed this decision to the district court, arguing that the ALJ erred by considering Kringlie’s functional limitations at the time of the vocational rehabilitation report issuance. The district court reversed the ALJ's decision, stating that WSI was only required to consider Kringlie's functional limitations at the time of his work-related injury. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the ALJ misapplied the law. The court held that the ALJ erred in considering Kringlie’s functional limitations at the time WSI issued the vocational rehabilitation report, rather than at the time of the work-related injury. Furthermore, the court ruled that the ALJ wrongfully relied on Dr. Swenson's opinion, which was not permitted under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-08.1. View "Workforce Safety and Insurance v. Kringlie" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Bjay Nagel, who was employed as a caretaker by Sand Creek Country Club, broke his ankle while working. He had been drinking alcohol prior to the accident. The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division initially awarded benefits but later denied further benefits after discovering that Nagel was intoxicated at the time of his injury. The Wyoming Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial of benefits, finding that Nagel's intoxication was a substantial factor causing his injury. Nagel appealed the decision, claiming that the OAH's decision was contrary to substantial evidence, arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the decision of the lower court. The Court found that there was substantial evidence supporting the OAH's decision that Nagel's intoxication was a substantial factor causing his injury. The Court also found that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious because there was a rational basis for it, and the decision was in accordance with the law. Nagel's intoxication at the time of his injury was established by a blood alcohol content test which showed a level of .183%. Furthermore, an expert opinion was provided which stated that it was more likely than not that Nagel's intoxication was a substantial factor causing his injury. View "Nagel v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services" on Justia Law

In this case, Pedro Barriga, an auto detailer at Precision Auto Body, LLC, quit his job due to a dispute with a coworker over the placement of a cooling fan and a perceived favoritism shown by his supervisor towards his coworker. Barriga then applied for unemployment benefits from the Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”), claiming he quit due to an intolerable work situation. The ADES initially denied his benefits, but an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) reversed this decision. Precision Auto Body appealed to the ADES Appellate Services Administration Appeals Board, which reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that the working conditions at Precision did not rise to the level of an intolerable work situation.Barriga appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which vacated the Appeals Board’s decision, interpreting the factors in Arizona's regulation R6-3-50515(C)(2) as non-exhaustive and remanding the case back to the Appeals Board.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals, vacating its opinion and affirming the Appeals Board’s decision. The court held that while the factors in R6-3-50515(C)(2) meant to determine whether a workplace situation is intolerable are not exhaustive, Barriga failed to present evidence of any unbearable condition to establish an intolerable work situation. A dispute over a cooler placement, while unpleasant, was not intolerable. The court also found that Barriga did not adequately attempt to adjust his grievance before leaving his employment. The court also concluded that Barriga waived his claim that he quit because of a health condition by failing to sufficiently raise this issue at earlier stages of the proceedings. View "BARRIGA v ADES/PRECISION" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Jason Lambro, worked as a studio technician for the Voice of America (VOA), a federal agency, under a series of contracts. Lambro alleged that he should have been classified as an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and thus entitled to benefits such as overtime pay. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the FLSA itself, through its definitional provisions, provides the applicable standard for recognizing an employment relationship for FLSA purposes. Therefore, the court had to evaluate whether Lambro was employed by VOA under the FLSA's own standard for being employed. The court rejected the lower court's conclusion that the FLSA does not cover a person asserting coverage as a federal government employee unless a congressional authorization outside the FLSA creates the asserted employment relationship with the federal government. The court vacated the lower court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lambro v. United States" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, ruled in favor of the Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association (VCERA) in a dispute over the calculation of retirement benefits for county employees. VCERA had adopted a resolution excluding compensation for accrued but unused annual leave hours exceeding a calendar year allowance from the calculation of retirement benefits, following a Supreme Court decision in a similar case (Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn.). VCERA sought a judicial declaration that its resolution was legal, which was granted by the trial court. The Criminal Justice Attorneys Association of Ventura and Ventura County Professional Peace Officers’ Association appealed this decision, arguing that the resolution was not mandated by the Supreme Court decision or the relevant statutes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that VCERA was required to comply with the Supreme Court decision and the relevant statutes, which were designed to prevent pension spiking by excluding income designed to artificially inflate a pension benefit. View "Ventura County Employees' Retirement Association v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Association of Ventura County" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was asked to review a decision from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had determined that T-Mobile had unlawfully dominated an organization it created known as T-Voice, which the NLRB classified as a "labor organization" under the National Labor Relations Act. The issue arose when T-Mobile, a national wireless telecommunications carrier, established T-Voice and selected employees to serve as representatives to raise issues with management. The Communications Workers of America filed an unfair labor practice charge against T-Mobile, alleging that T-Voice was a labor organization and that T-Mobile had unlawfully dominated it.In its decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRB's determination. The court held that the NLRB was correct in finding that T-Voice was a labor organization because the organization existed at least in part to deal with T-Mobile over working conditions, which is a key criterion for qualifying as a labor organization under federal law. The court further affirmed the NLRB's finding that T-Mobile had dominated T-Voice, which is prohibited by federal law. Consequently, the court denied T-Mobile's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement of its order. View "T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

In this case, the California School Employees Association (CSEA) filed a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Board (Board or PERB) alleging that the Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) violated Government Code section 3543.5, subdivision (a), by terminating an employee in retaliation for her union activities. The employee was a secretary and local union chapter president. The Board found in favor of the employee, concluding that her status as a union officer was protected activity under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), and that VUSD had retaliated against her for her union activity. VUSD appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, held that holding a union office is protected activity under the EERA. The court also concluded that the Board correctly found an inference that VUSD had retaliated against the employee for her union activity. However, the court disagreed with the Board's conclusion that VUSD failed to prove its affirmative defense, that it would have terminated the employee for poor performance regardless of any protected activity. The court found that the record compelled a finding that VUSD would have justifiably terminated the employee notwithstanding her protected union activity. Therefore, the court granted VUSD's petition and set aside the Board's decision. View "Visalia Unified School Dist. v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Amy Shumway was employed as a receptionist at Evans Chiropractic in Idaho. Her employment was terminated by Dr. John Hitchcock, one of the owners, for insubordination. Following her termination, Shumway applied for unemployment benefits. Her application was initially approved by an Appeals Examiner from the Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL) who found Shumway eligible for benefits despite her termination for insubordination. On appeal by Evans Chiropractic, the Industrial Commission affirmed the decision, but on different grounds. Evans Chiropractic then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho.In the Supreme Court, Evans Chiropractic argued that Shumway should not be eligible for benefits because her employment was terminated for job-related misconduct, namely her refusal to meet with Dr. Hitchcock for discussions about her behavior at work. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the Commission erred in its application of the law. The Court noted that the Commission had focused on Shumway's subjective reasons for not meeting with Hitchcock, rather than the employer's expectations. The Court found that Hitchcock directly communicated his expectation for Shumway to meet with him and that her refusal to do so constituted insubordination, which is a form of job-related misconduct. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision and held that Shumway was ineligible for unemployment benefits as a matter of law. View "Shumway v. IDOL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that detained workers at a privately owned and operated immigration detention center are considered "employees" under Washington's Minimum Wage Act (MWA), and are thus entitled to receive the state's minimum wage for their work. The court rejected arguments from the detention center operator, The GEO Group, that the detained workers should be exempt from the MWA because they resided and slept at their place of employment. The court also disagreed with GEO's claim that the MWA's government-institutions exemption applied to the detainees because the facility was operated under contract with the federal government. The court found the government-institutions exemption only applies to detainees in public, government-run institutions, and not in privately owned and operated facilities. Finally, the court ruled that a damages award to one party (a class of detainees) does not prevent another party (the State of Washington) from seeking equitable relief in the form of an unjust enrichment award. The case stemmed from lawsuits brought by the State and a class of detainees alleging that GEO's practice of paying detainees less than Washington's minimum wage violated the MWA. After a lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, GEO appealed, leading to the certification of questions to the Washington Supreme Court. View "Nwauzor v. The GEO Grp., Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was called upon to determine whether the ascension of an unclassified service employee to a classified service position with higher pay with the same public employer is a promotion under the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and the Veterans’ Preference Act (VPA). The case arose when Ralph E. Lynn, a classified service employee, and Aaron Novotnak, an unclassified service employee, both veterans, applied for a classified service position with the Department of Corrections (DOC). The Office of Administration (OA) deemed the position a promotion for Lynn and did not apply veterans’ preference, while it deemed the position an appointment for Novotnak and applied veterans’ preference. The DOC selected Novotnak for the position, and Lynn appealed to the State Civil Service Commission.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the ascension of an unclassified service employee to a classified service position with higher pay with the same public employer is not a promotion under the CSRA and the VPA, but rather an appointment. Therefore, it is not discriminatory under section 2704 of the CSRA to award a veterans’ preference to an unclassified service employee seeking an appointment but not to a classified service employee seeking a promotion. The court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court in part and reversed in part. The court ruled that Lynn was not entitled to veterans’ preference as he was seeking a promotion, not an appointment. However, Lynn will remain in his position due to a separate issue of technical discrimination that was not reviewed by the court. View "Department of Corrections v. Lynn" on Justia Law