United States: Fox (Mostly) Remains In The Henhouse: SCOTUS Says Agencies (Sort Of) Know Best

By a 9-0 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that by and large, the courts should continue deferring to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations, leaving a good deal of power in the hands of agencies despite an outcry that this doctrine interferes with governmental separation of powers. In the last workplace law decision of the Supreme Court's term, it also ruled stare decisis cuts strongly against overruling Auer and that the Court would need a particularly "special justification" to reverse Auer. Although the underlying case was not employment-related, today's decision in Kisor v. Wilkie could have far reaching impact on employers and workplace law compliance.

While the Supreme Court affirmed that the power to interpret regulations rests with the agency that promulgated them, it also clarified federal courts' responsibility for thoroughly assessing the ambiguities in such regulations along with the reasonability of agency interpretations flowing therefrom. This means that employers now have an opening to increase their participation in regulatory guidance so as to shape policy at agencies such as the Department of Labor, the Equal Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

How Auer We Here?

The Supreme Court's rulings in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. (1945) and Auer v. Robbins (1997) have long required courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations, provided such interpretation is neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulatory framework. But this deference has been under attack as constitutionally suspect for some time now, with some arguing that it runs afoul of the separation of powers doctrine. The argument is that courts have inappropriately abdicated their authority to interpret the law by allowing the same agency that promulgated a regulation the power to also interpret and enforce it.

The Supreme Court agreed to wade into the debate to reconsider the powerful administrative doctrine. To do so, it used a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulation governing standards for reconsideration of disability benefits claims. James Kisor, a Vietnam War veteran, was denied federal service-related disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in 1983 due to lack of diagnosis concerning his disability. In 2006, he reopened his disability claim and was awarded partial benefits based on new evidence of PTSD.

However, the VA later denied Kisor retroactive benefits from 1983 through 2006. The agency found that the additional service records he provided to support the right to benefits for this time period were not "relevant" as defined by a pertinent federal statute, which provides for VA reconsideration of a previously decided claim if the agency "receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim." The VA accordingly denied the claim for retroactive benefits because it concluded that none of the proffered "new" records demonstrated that it had made a mistake in 1983 when it found that Kisor did not suffer from PTSD.

Kisor appealed the VA's determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the records were, in fact, relevant because they tended to make a fact more probable. The VA countered by arguing that later-tendered records must prove or disprove a matter in issue in order to be considered relevant. Finding both statutory constructions reasonable, the court held the regulation was ambiguous (i.e., subject to more than one reasonable meaning) and thus turned to the agency's interpretation of its own regulation to settle the issue. 

The VA's interpretation was that "relevant" meant "non-cumulative and pertinent to the matter at issue" in the case. It used this definition to deny Kisor's benefits claim because it had already concluded that the additional service records were not relevant because they contained information that was already known, acknowledged, and undisputed back in 1983 when Kisor's claim was first adjudicated. The court held that the VA's interpretation was neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the agency's regulatory framework, and therefore upheld the denial. Kisor then requested review by the Supreme Court, which accepted the case and today rendered its ruling.

Supreme Court: Auer Deference Survives But Should Be Narrowed

In an anomalous posture before the Court, neither party specifically defended the way Auer deference has been applied, effectively conceding that it is imperfect. While Kisor argued the standard was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) while also running afoul of the constitutional separation of powers and due process doctrines, the VA urged the justices to clarify and narrow rather than eliminate the doctrine altogether. 

In its ruling, the Court vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held the appellate court must make a conscientious effort to determine, based on indicia like text, structure, history, and purpose, whether the regulation at issue really has more than one reasonable meaning. The Court further held the Federal Circuit assumed too quickly that Auer deference should apply in the event of genuine ambi­guity. Instead, a court must assess whether the interpretation is of the sort that Congress would want to receive deference.

 As a result of the opinion in Kisor, reviewing courts should only defer to an agency's interpretation if, after exhausting all the "traditional tools" of construction: (1) the regulation is truly ambiguous; and (2) the interpretation was issued with fair notice to regulated parties, is not inconsistent with the agency's prior views, rests on the agency's expertise, represents the agency's authoritative or official position, and the agency's reading of the rule reflects its "fair and considered judgment."

In essence, the Court struck a balance between overturning decades-old precedent and adhering to the monopolized power of agencies to issue vague regulations, informally interpret those regulations to make law outside of the APA, and demand courts defer to an agency's interpretation. The Court hopes that such a compromise will encourage agencies to regulate with clarity and specificity at the outset, yet it reserves to agencies the power to refine their own regulations with expert input as issues arise. Meanwhile, rightful judicial authority is retained to ultimately evaluate and overrule, in proper circumstances, self-serving legal interpretations.

Employers Be Bold: Participate Or Challenge Agency Interpretations

Increased judicial scrutiny over the administrative state will likely create one of two paths—it will either incentivize agencies to promulgate regulations with more precision and to issue guidance following formal rulemaking standards, or it will expose agencies to increased challenges and correction through federal courts, thus fostering further instability. Employers may well benefit from either path, whether through the increase in regulatory certainty and transparency, or the platform to shape sub-regulatory guidance through litigation.

Take for example, the uncertain legal position employers faced in 2016 when the USDOL proposed "the new overtime rule" in stark contrast to the prior administration's preferences. If the new Kisor standard had been in place, the USDOL may have taken a more concerted approach to implement such a rule rather than face a multitude of lawsuits and the risk of increased scrutiny of its position only to find itself enforcing an unworkable judicial construct. If the USDOL or other federal agencies continue issuing guidance on untenable grounds, employers now have the power to push back knowing that courts have been instructed to more strictly scrutinize agency interpretations.

In one fell swoop, Kisor holds agencies more accountable and clarifies when a Court should afford Auer deference. A court must carefully consider the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation before applying Auer deference. Moreover, employers will have the chance to provide more meaningful input when the USDOL, EEOC, NLRB, and OSHA elect to use formal rulemaking procedures, and to confidently challenge when agency interpretations are at odds with the current regulatory scheme, avoiding the blind deference afforded by prior Court precedent.

Some Possible Targets

We have forecasted the specific areas of law that may face heightened scrutiny under the new Kisor standard; it may be worth paying attention to the following:

  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The EEOC has an expansive delegation of authority when it comes to Title I of the ADA (the portion of the statute relating to employment discrimination). Some have criticized the agency's regulations promulgated through this authority, especially in the wake of the ADA Amendments Act passed in 2008, including those related to the concepts of undue burden, transient conditions, and reasonable accommodations as they relate to unpaid leave.
  • Wellness Programs: Under the ADA and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the EEOC has promulgated controversial regulations that impact employer wellness programs. While the most recent version of these rules were vacated by a court decision in 2017, the agency recently announced that we can expect a new set of rules by December 2019.
  • Joint Employment: Both the USDOL and the NLRB have recently floated regulations to alter the federal interpretation of joint employment. The Kisor standard may result in renewed interest by the judiciary to insert itself into this fray.
  • Workplace Safety Penalty Amounts: While the federal Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act caps penalties at $7,000 for serious and "other than serious" violations, and $70,000 for repeat or willful violations, OSHA recently increased those maximums to $13,260 and $132,598 pursuant to a different statutory authority. No doubt employers would appreciate courts examining the agency's authority to promulgate such a rule under the new standard.
  • Various Other Workplace Safety Rules: Beyond the penalty issue, there are a variety of current rules issued by OSHA that could be the subject of renewed judicial interest. They include rules related to what it means to be a "repeated" violation under the OSH Act, how to handle lock-out tag-out regulations (specifically which equipment components in close proximity to each other constitute a "machine" for purposes of the standard), and possibly the controversial " anti-retaliation" rules, especially as they relate to post-accident drug testing.
  • Wage And Hour Rules: The USDOL regulations cover many wage and hour rules that may be subject to increased scrutiny under the new Kisor standard, including those covering tip credits, hours worked, and overtime-only exemptions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions