{"id":1882,"date":"2024-12-19T11:10:44","date_gmt":"2024-12-19T15:10:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1882"},"modified":"2024-12-19T11:10:45","modified_gmt":"2024-12-19T15:10:45","slug":"the-class-action-weekly-wire-episode-86-post-chevron-challenges-to-administrative-agencies-authority","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/12\/19\/the-class-action-weekly-wire-episode-86-post-chevron-challenges-to-administrative-agencies-authority\/","title":{"rendered":"The Class Action Weekly Wire \u2013 Episode 86: Post-Chevron: Challenges To Administrative Agencies\u2019 Authority"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/12\/86-cover.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/12\/86-cover-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1883\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/12\/86-cover-1024x576.png 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/12\/86-cover-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/12\/86-cover-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/12\/86-cover-1536x864.png 1536w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/12\/86-cover.png 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 767px) 89vw, (max-width: 1000px) 54vw, (max-width: 1071px) 543px, 580px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Duane Morris Takeaway:<\/em><\/strong><em> <\/em>This week&#8217;s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley with their discussion of a U.S. Supreme Court decision <a href=\"https:\/\/assets.law360news.com\/2274000\/2274363\/121624zor_6khn.pdf\">vacating<\/a> a D.C. Circuit ruling in an NLRB dispute over an employer\u2019s liability for withdrawing recognition from a union under the agency\u2019s successor bar standard. This ruling marks a notable development in the wake of the high court\u2019s <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright Enterprises v. Raimando<\/em> opinion <a href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/alerts\/us_supreme_court_ends_chevron_deference_0624.html\">overturning<\/a> the <em>Chevron<\/em> doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Check out today\u2019s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: <a href=\"https:\/\/open.spotify.com\/show\/2HZP212kEycOPXPY7Qppzr\">Spotify<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/music.amazon.com\/podcasts\/a23249e0-d394-470c-ba27-b4d87dcf4381\/the-class-action-weekly-wire\">Amazon Music<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/the-class-action-weekly-wire\/id1709589577\">Apple Podcasts<\/a>, Samsung Podcasts, <a href=\"https:\/\/podcastindex.org\/podcast\/6626090\">Podcast Index<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/tunein.com\/radio\/The-Class-Action-Weekly-Wire-p3882927\/\">Tune In<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.listennotes.com\/podcasts\/the-class-action-weekly-wire-duane-morris-uQEYrwG7MOU\/\">Listen Notes<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.iheart.com\/podcast\/269-the-class-action-weekly-wi-124460701\/\">iHeartRadio<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.deezer.com\/us\/show\/1000307221\">Deezer<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@DMClassAction\">YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Episode 86: Post-Chevron: Challenges To Administrative Agencies\u2019 Authority\" width=\"525\" height=\"295\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/Voo6qQ5Uy2A?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Episode Transcript<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jerry Maatman:<\/strong> Thank you loyal blog readers and listeners for joining our next episode of the weekly podcast series, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I&#8217;m Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris, and joining me is Jen Riley, the vice chair of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group. Thanks for being on the podcast, Jen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jennifer Riley:<\/strong> Thanks so much, Jerry. Great to be here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> Today we&#8217;ll be breaking down the Supreme Court&#8217;s acceptance of a case for review involving the National Labor Relations Board and Hospital Menonita de Guayama from Puerto Rico. The case is crucial, especially after the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in the <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/em> case, which reshapes how courts review agencies interpretations of the law. I think this is a fascinating case, and a great opportunity to talk about how the Supreme Court&#8217;s shift in its approach is going to affect labor law and employment relations. It&#8217;s an interplay between agency discretion, and judicial review. And it&#8217;s really at the heart of class action litigation. Jen, can you recap the main points of this case for our viewers and listeners?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Thanks, Jerry, absolutely. The case involves a dispute where a hospital in Puerto Rico withdrew recognition from a union; the National Labor Relations Board ruled that this violated the National Labor Relations Act, citing the successor bar doctrine. That doctrine prevents an employer from withdrawing recognition from a union for at least six months after taking over a bargaining unit. After the hospital filed suit, the D.C. Circuit upheld the NLRB&#8217;s decision, and eventually the Supreme Court granted review and agreed to hear the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> Thanks, Jen. The core issue here is whether the successor bar doctrine, which the NLRB has applied for year, is legally valid \u2013 especially in light of the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent decision in the <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright<\/em> case. The Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling overruled the longstanding <em>Chevron <\/em>doctrine which had instructed lower federal courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes. That ruling has profound implications for federal courts, which will now review decisions made by agencies like the NLRB in this particular case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Exactly, Jerry. That is why the <em>Hospital Menonita<\/em> case is so important. The <em>Chevron<\/em> doctrine is rooted in the idea that in certain circumstances, agencies with expertise in certain areas are better positioned to interpret ambiguous statutes than courts. If the statute is ambiguous, the court must assess whether the agency&#8217;s interpretation of the statute is reasonable. The court will generally uphold the agency&#8217;s interpretation, if it is a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous statute, even if the court itself might have interpreted the statute differently. Courts generally give significant deference to agencies\u2019 expertise and experience in interpreting laws within their jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is now up for scrutiny, of course, after <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright<\/em>. Essentially, the hospital argued that the court should independently review whether the NLRB&#8217;s interpretation of the law, particularly the successor bar doctrine, was correct under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB defended its position, claiming that the D.C. Circuit wasn&#8217;t relying solely on <em>Chevron<\/em> and upholding the decision. The NLRB argued that the circuit actually used pre-<em>Chevron<\/em> case law that recognized agency discretion in interpreting the National Labor Relations Act. However, the hospital countered that under <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright<\/em>, any deference to the NLRB&#8217;s interpretation would need to be reconsidered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> Interesting. I think this is somewhat of a blueprint or a test case for how employers or corporations sued, based on interpretations of agency regulations, can turn the table, so to speak, and argue that federal district court judges should interpret the laws as enacted, and not based on somewhat liberal interpretations of those laws by agencies. That&#8217;s exactly what the hospital, as I understand it, argued in terms of the <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright<\/em> decision requires the court to critically assess an agency&#8217;s interpretation, and not simply defer carte blanche to them. In the past, courts would have applied <em>Chevron<\/em>, and given the agency a wide berth in terms of all benefits, or the jump ball, going to the agency in terms of its interpretation. But now, with <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright<\/em> we have a new playing field, and the Supreme Court has signaled that agency interpretations will be scrutinized, particularly when the statute in question is ambiguous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Exactly. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the D.C. Circuit&#8217;s ruling and remanded the case here, sending it back to the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration in light of <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> It&#8217;s interesting, insofar as now the argument is \u2018this is the essential reading of the statute, and how the court should interpret it, and the agency&#8217;s interpretation is just one data point.\u2019 And now defendants have significant precedent to say agencies\u2019 interpretations have been rejected and basically maybe not even a data point, but shouldn&#8217;t even be considered. So, the balance of power has shifted and the litmus test, so to speak, or the playing field on which defendants are operating has completely shifted, based on the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Great point, Jerry. The successor bar doctrine itself is already controversial. Some people argue that it&#8217;s necessary to protect workers\u2019 rights during employer transitions, while others think it goes too far in restricting employers\u2019 ability to challenge unions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> Well, now the case is back with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the D.C. Circuit, and it&#8217;s that time of the year when people make New Year&#8217;s resolutions and predict what&#8217;s going to happen in 2025. What is the Jen Riley prognostication as to the ultimate outcome of this particular case?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Well, this one is hard to say. The D.C. Circuit will have to reconsider its ruling with the <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright <\/em>framework in mind, which means it will have to engage in a more detailed analysis of whether the NLRB&#8217;s interpretation of the law is the best reading of the National Labor Relations Act. If the court decides that the successor bar doctrine doesn&#8217;t align with the statute, we could see a major shift in labor law, particularly in how unions and employers navigate these types of transitions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> Well, that&#8217;s a very succinct summary of the significant implications of this case. Stay tuned, readers and listeners. 2025 \u2013 put on your seatbelts. This is going to be a heck of a ruling. Well, thank you so much, Jen, for your thought leadership and your contributions and giving us an inside baseball look at what&#8217;s going on in terms of the future interpretations of the <em>Loper<\/em><em> Bright<\/em> doctrine, and how that will impact corporations and their defense of both labor and employment matters and class actions in general.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jennifer:<\/strong> Thanks so much, Jerry. Thanks for having me, and happy holidays to all of our listeners!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Duane Morris Takeaway: This week&#8217;s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley with their discussion of a U.S. Supreme Court decision vacating a D.C. Circuit ruling in an NLRB dispute over an employer\u2019s liability for withdrawing recognition from a union under the agency\u2019s successor bar standard. &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/12\/19\/the-class-action-weekly-wire-episode-86-post-chevron-challenges-to-administrative-agencies-authority\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;The Class Action Weekly Wire \u2013 Episode 86: Post-Chevron: Challenges To Administrative Agencies\u2019 Authority&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[90],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-action-weekly-wire"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1882\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1882"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}