Two North Carolina petitions seek to resolve public employee wages and benefits

Petitions of the week

The Petitions of the week section highlights a selection of certificate petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all the petitions we monitor is available here.

This week, we highlight cert petitions asking the court to consider, among other things, whether two groups of North Carolina employees were denied state pay or benefits in violation of federal law. on employment and the Constitution.

Emergency Medical Services employees in Cleveland County, North Carolina, work long days and therefore are eligible for a combination of “full-time” and overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act. EMS County employees are paid on an hourly rate consistent with the FLSA. In calculating this hourly rate, however, the county includes all time worked by EMS employees, both regular hours and overtime. EMS employee Sara Conner sued the county in federal district court, arguing the formula violates the FLSA by artificially deflating the actual full-time salary promised to her in her salary — known in law labor under the name of “time out” claim.

Along with Conner and a group of EMS employees, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit found the FLSA to be “silent” on the issue of part-time wages. To resolve the impasse, the court granted deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. to a Department of Labor regulation that reads the law in favor of employees. Below Skidmore deference – a more lenient standard than the more widely known Chevron deference – courts may choose, but are not required, to accept an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous legislation if they find that interpretation persuasive. In Cleveland County vs. Connerthe county is asking judges to decide whether Skidmore deference was appropriate here, as well as the question of whether time-out claims exist under the RSA.

In Cleveland County and beyond, the State of North Carolina offers several medical insurance plans for all retired state employees. In 2011, the state legislature changed one of these plans to start requiring a small monthly premium. In doing so, he relied on a clause in the original law stating that the legislature “reserves the right to modify, amend or repeal” health benefits for retired employees at any time. The change sparked a lawsuit by a group of retired state workers, which was certified as a class action on behalf of the more than 220,000 former workers who may have signed up for the plan. previously without premium.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled for the employees. The Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that “No state shall … enact any law affecting the obligation of contracts”. Although the right to amend clause indicates that the legislature never intended to establish a “contract” with retired state employees for health benefits, the court held that the recourse of these former employees to state plans nevertheless creates a contractual right, and the state violated that right by amending its plan. In State health plan for teachers and state employees c. LakeNorth Carolina is asking judges to decide whether a law with a right to amend clause like his can create a contractual right under the Constitution.

A list of featured petitions from this week is below:

Cleveland County, NC vs. Conner
21-1538
Problems: (1) If the Fair Labor Standards Act permits an employee, who has received at least the required minimum wage and overtime pay at a rate that is at least one and one-half times his normal rate, to sue her employer for and recover unpaid regular hour wages earned during the weeks she worked overtime; and (2) if Skidmore v. Swift & Co. allows courts to independently assess an agency’s non-binding interpretation of a law.

State health plan for teachers and state employees c. Lake
21-1565
Publish: If a State Legislature’s express reservation of the right to amend a law providing benefits to government employees bars a claim under the Contract Clause of the Constitution based on the Legislature’s subsequent decision to amend these advantages.

Biogen International GmbH v Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
21-1567
Publish: whether the requirement of 35 USC § 112 that a patent specification “contain a written description of the invention” is satisfied when the specification describes the invention, or whether the specification must also disclose data which demonstrates that the claimed invention is “effective” and emphasizes the claimed invention. invention by distinguishing and describing it more than once.

Spade v. Department of Justice
21-1570
Publish: Whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to deal with injuries that fall within the scope of the Federal Employees Compensation Act.