247 Local Media247 Local Media

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

    What's Hot

    An Overview of Online Casinos vs Traditional Casinos

    December 8, 2022

    Types of Specialists for Erectile Dysfunction

    October 31, 2022

    When students’ basic needs are met by community schools, learning can flourish

    September 27, 2022
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    • Home
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    247 Local Media247 Local Media
    Subscribe
    • Home
    • Automotive
    • Business
    • CBD
    • Crypto
    • Education
    • Entertainment
    • Fashion
    • Finance
    • Health
    • Home Improvement
    • Law \ Legal
    • News
    • Shopping
    • Sports
    • Technology
    • Travel
    • Contact US
    247 Local Media247 Local Media
    Home»Law \ Legal»Two petitions from North Carolina seek to resolve pay and benefits for public employees
    Law \ Legal

    Two petitions from North Carolina seek to resolve pay and benefits for public employees

    By July 4, 2022No Comments4 Mins Read
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Two petitions from North Carolina seek to resolve pay and benefits for public employees
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
    Two petitions from North Carolina seek to resolve pay and benefits for public employees


    Petitions of the Week


    By Kalvis Golde

    on Jul 3, 2022
    at 9:50 pm

    A courier drops off a package at the Supreme Court

    The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.

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

    Emergency Medical Services employees in Cleveland County, North Carolina, work long shifts, and as a result are eligible for a mix of “straight-time” and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. County EMS employees are salaried based on an hourly rate that complies with the FLSA. In calculating that hourly rate, however, the county includes all time worked by EMS employees, both straight-time and overtime hours. EMS employee Sara Conner sued the county in federal district court, arguing that this formula violates the FLSA by artificially deflating the effective straight-time wage she was promised in her salary – known in employment law as a “gap-time” claim.

    Siding with Conner and a group of EMS employees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit viewed the FLSA as “silent” on the question of gap-time wages. To resolve the stalemate, the court granted deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. to a regulation by the Department of Labor that reads the act in the employees’ favor. Under Skidmore deference – a more lenient standard than the more widely known Chevron deference – courts may choose, but are not required, to agree with an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law if they view that interpretation as persuasive. In Cleveland County v. Conner, the county asks the justices to decide whether Skidmore deference was appropriate here, as well as whether gap-time claims exist at all under the FLSA.

    In Cleveland County and beyond, the state of North Carolina offers several medical-insurance plans to all retired state employees. In 2011, the state legislature amended one of those plans to begin requiring a small monthly premium. In doing so, it relied on a clause in the original statute stating that the legislature “reserves the right to alter, amend, or repeal” the health benefits for retired employees at any time. That change triggered a lawsuit from a group of retired state employees, which was certified as a class action on behalf of the more than 220,000 former workers who could have signed up for the previously premium-free plan.

    The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled for the employees. The contracts clause in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing 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, the reliance of those former employees on the 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 v. Lake, North Carolina asks the justices to decide whether a law with a right-to-amend clause like its own can create a contractual right under the Constitution.

    A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:

    Cleveland County, North Carolina v. Conner
    21-1538
    Issues: (1) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act allows an employee, who has been paid at least the required minimum wage and overtime pay at a rate that is at least one and one-half times her regular rate, to sue her employer for and recover unpaid straight-time wages earned in weeks when she worked overtime; and (2) whether Skidmore v. Swift & Co. allows courts to independently evaluate an agency’s nonbinding interpretation of a statute.

    State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees v. Lake
    21-1565
    Issue: Whether a state legislature’s express reservation of the right to amend a statute providing benefits to government employees bars a claim under the Constitution’s contracts clause based on the legislature’s later decision to amend those benefits.

    Biogen International GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
    21-1567
    Issue: Whether 35 U.S.C. § 112’s requirement that a patent specification “contain a written description of the invention” is met when the specification describes the invention, or whether the specification must also disclose data that demonstrates the claimed invention is “effective” and emphasize the claimed invention by singling it out and describing it more than once.

    Spade v. Department of Justice
    21-1570
    Issue: Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to address what injuries fall within the scope of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.



    Source link

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

    Related Posts

    The October term 2022 preview

    September 26, 2022

    The morning read for Monday, Sept. 26

    September 26, 2022

    In Maryland prison-assault case, a request to clarify an important procedural question

    September 23, 2022
    Add A Comment

    Comments are closed.

    Editors Picks
    Recent Posts
    • An Overview of Online Casinos vs Traditional Casinos
    • Types of Specialists for Erectile Dysfunction
    • When students’ basic needs are met by community schools, learning can flourish
    • Walmart and Target Are Hiring 140,000 Seasonal Workers
    • 7 Ways to Get Affordable Dental Care for Adults and Children
    Archives
    • December 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • September 2021
    Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest Vimeo YouTube
    • Home
    © 2022 - 247 Local Media- All Rights Reserved.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.