Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Gwendolyn Hallsmith was the planning and community development director for the City of Montpelier. Her employment was protected by a "justifiable cause" provision in the City's personnel plan. In November 2013, City Manager William Fraser placed Hallsmith on paid administrative leave, and sent a letter to her indicating that he was contemplating firing her under the City's personnel plan. In the letter, the city manager described various acts of unprofessional behavior and insubordination, damage to relationships with key individuals and governing bodies within city government, and inappropriate use of City resources. He asserted that these acts were grounds for disciplinary action under the City's personnel plan, and offered to meet with Hallsmith to consider any response she wanted to make. Hallsmith, accompanied by counsel, met with the city manager and argued her case. Following that meeting, the city manager dismissed Hallsmith from employment with the City. Hallsmith timely filed a grievance pursuant to the personnel plan, which provides for review of disciplinary action. At the grievance hearing, the city questioned Hallsmith and her witnesses extensively. Hallsmith was not permitted to cross-examine the city manager, the City's only witness. The assistant city manager, serving as the hearing officer, upheld the City's termination decision. Hallsmith subsequently filed a Rule 75 petition at the trial court, seeking reinstatement, reimbursement for lost compensation, and other remedies. In her petition, Hallsmith contested the merits of her termination, arguing that the City's decision to terminate her employment was not supported by sufficient evidence of justifiable cause, and that the hearing officer's decision to uphold the termination was not supported by the evidence and applied the wrong legal standard. She also raised a due-process challenge to the post-termination hearing procedures. In response, the City moved to dismiss the due-process claim, arguing that Hallsmith got all the process that was due. The City did not argue that the post-termination grievance hearing was constitutionally adequate. Instead, its sole argument was that the pre-termination "Loudermill" meeting, combined with the availability of a post-termination judicial remedy "Rule 75" petition challenging governmental action or a common-law action for breach of contract satisfied due process. On the merits, the City argued that there was credible evidence establishing justifiable cause for the assistant city manager's decision to sustain the City's firing of Hallsmith. The trial court rejected the City's argument that the availability of a post-termination judicial remedy in the form of a Rule 75 petition or a breach-of-contract action satisfied due process. The City appealed that decision, but after careful review of the trial court and Board records, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Hallsmith v. City of Montpelier" on Justia Law

Employer Bradford's Trucking, Inc. appealed an Employment Security Board ruling that certain individuals were employees of the company for purposes of assessing unemployment taxes. Eileen Bradford has worked for employer, Bradford's Trucking, as a bookkeeper. Her son was the company's president. Ms. Bradford opened a bookkeeping business in 2008. She did not register her business with the Secretary of State, and one of her clients was Employer. She testified that she had no written agreements with the other two companies and did not send them invoices. Ms. Bradford was paid $25 per hour by employer for her bookkeeping services. In 2010, Ms. Bradford started working full time for another company, and consequently hired a friend, Neil Swenor, to help with employer's books. Swenor was then working full time as a bookkeeper at a meat market and was looking to supplement his income. He worked for employer for about a year, working out of Ms. Bradford's home in Vergennes. He usually worked about seven to ten hours per week, for $14 per hour. Ms. Bradford signed Swenor's checks on behalf of employer. When Swenor left at the end of 2011, Ms. Bradford hired Kelsey Reed, her son's fiancee, to replace him. Reed ran a daycare business. She worked for employer from January to August 2012, for approximately the same hours and rate of pay as Sweenor, and also worked out of Ms. Bradford's home. After Reed left, Ms. Bradford resumed doing all of the payroll and bookkeeping services for employer. In June 2012, the Department of Labor assessed employer for unpaid unemployment compensation contributions for Ms. Bradford and those that helped her keep the books for Employer. Employer appealed with respect to those three individuals. Following an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) sustained the Department's assessment of contributions. Employer then appealed to the Employment Security Board, which adopted the ALJ's findings and affirmed its decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Board's decision, and affirmed. View "Bradford's Trucking, Inc. v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

The New England Police Benevolent Association (NEPBA) appealed the Vermont Labor Relations Board's dismissal of NEPBA's petition for election of a collective-bargaining representative for NEPBA's failure to provide justification for its untimely filing. On January 30, 2014, NEPBA filed a petition for the election of a collective-bargaining representative to represent the sworn law enforcement officers of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vermont Department of Liquor Control, and Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles (collectively "the officers"). The officers seeking new representation were among those in the Non-Management Bargaining Unit, which was covered by a collective-bargaining agreement between the Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA) and the State of Vermont. The existing collective-bargaining agreement was set to expire on June 30, 2014, and the Non-Management Bargaining Unit was scheduled to conduct a ratification vote on a successor agreement on January 31, 2014, the day after the petition was filed. On appeal, NEPBA argued that the Board failed to consider its proffered justification and instead improperly concluded that the NEPBA provided no justification. Moreover, NEPBA asserted that the Board failed to conduct any analysis in support of its position, explain its findings, or define the applicable legal standard. NEPBA also argued that its proffered justification that the pending ratification of the successor agreement would foreclose the officers' opportunity to select a collective-bargaining representative ­is sufficient to waive the normal period for timely filing. The Supreme Court disagreed with NEPBA on the first issue and held that the Board did not err in dismissing the petition for NEPBA's failure to provide a justification for the untimely filing. View "In re New England Police Benevolent Association Petition for Election of Collective Bargaining Representative" on Justia Law

In 1996, claimant injured his left ankle during the scope of his employment as a game warden with the State of Vermont. On July 8, 1996, his treating orthopedic physician indicated in medical notes that claimant's injuries were consistent with someone who injured his ankle, it would take about a year to recover, and that claimant would be seen again "as needed." On May 15, approximately four months after claimant's injury and two months before his orthopedic physician wrote the July 8 note, the Department of Labor promulgated Workers' Compensation Rule 18(a), which in relevant part required employers/insurers to affirmatively determine whether an employee had a permanent impairment at the time the employee reached a medical end result. That determination was required to be made within 45 days of the filing of the notice of termination. Before the department's promulgation of Rule 18(a), a claimant could investigate a permanent impairment after reaching a medical end result by either directly obtaining an impairment rating from a qualified physician or asking the employer to arrange obtaining the rating; however, there was no express regulatory obligation on the part of the employer irrespective of any request from the injured employee to determine whether the employee had a permanent impairment. Claimant took no further action in this case until the fall of 2010, when he asked his employer's (the State of Vermont's) workers' compensation adjuster to schedule a permanency evaluation for his 1996 injury. In response, the adjuster scheduled an independent medical evaluation with a physician, who concluded that claimant had a one percent permanent impairment rating attributable to the 1996 injury. Claimant arranged for a second evaluation with a physician, who reached the same conclusion. In 2011, the State filed a form denying permanent benefits to claimant, asserting that the claim for permanent partial disability benefits was time barred because the six-year statute of limitations had expired. Claimant appealed two decisions in which the Commissioner of the Department of Labor concluded, as a matter of law, that the State did not waive its statute-of-limitations defense and was entitled to summary judgment based on that defense. Based on that evidence, the commissioner found that "as of July 1996 [claimant] knew, or should have known, that he had reached an end medical result, and that whatever deficits he was left with were likely permanent in nature." The Supreme Court, after review, agreed that the State did not waive the affirmative defense by agreeing to claimant's request for an impairment rating. The statute of limitations was not tolled because the employer did not determine the status of claimant's injury 45 after filing of the notice. The Supreme Court affirmed the commissioner's ruling that the claim for permanent partial disability benefits in this case was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. View "Smiley v. Vermont" on Justia Law

Claimant worked at the Vermont State Hospital as a psychiatric technician and ward aide. His duties involved lifting and dealing with patients who could be combative. Claimant suffered work-related injuries on three separate occasions in 1987, 1992, and 1997. All of these claims related to low back pain. Claimant underwent surgery after each of these injuries and returned to work. After the 1992 injury, claimant's surgeon rated him with a 10% permanent impairment to his spine, and the State began paying permanent partial disability benefits. There was no new rating for the 1997 injury. This appeal came after a dispute over an order based on a worker's compensation agreement. Claimant injured his back again in 2002. Claimant received an 8% whole-person impairment rating, with 6% of that rating referable to a previous injury. Based on this rating, claimant executed an Agreement for Permanent Partial Disability Compensation (Form 22) with the State, which the Commissioner of the Department of Labor then approved. Six years after the commissioner ordered the award, claimant underwent two more permanency evaluations with different doctors who both used a method that the first doctor had not used. Each of the subsequent evaluations resulted in higher whole-person impairment ratings before consideration of the portion attributable to any pre-existing impairment. Based on the higher ratings, claimant made a claim for additional benefits related to the 2002 injury. Claimant asserted that the award should be modified because his medical condition had worsened, or, alternatively, that the parties had based their Form 22 agreement upon a material mistake of fact. The commissioner ruled in the State's favor. Claimant then appealed to the superior court, which reversed the decision of the commissioner and awarded claimant additional benefits after a bench trial. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the differences between the doctors' impairment ratings in 2010 and an impairment rating from 2003 were insufficient to serve as grounds for reopening the original order for compensation. The Court therefore concluded as a matter of law that failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a mistake of fact sufficient to require reformation of the approved Form 22. The Court vacated the decision of the superior court as to the issues on appeal. View "Marshall v. Vermont State Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Ralph Nelson, the former town manager of St. Johnsbury, appealed a trial court decision granting partial summary judgment to defendants, the Town of St. Johnsbury and its individual selectboard members (collectively "the Town"), on his claims of wrongful termination; violation of procedural due process under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983; violation of Chapter I, Article 4 of the Vermont Constitution; and promissory estoppel. In September 2010, the selectboard formally hired plaintiff as town manager after he served briefly on an interim basis. According to plaintiff, the Town's attorney advised him on three separate occasions that he could be removed only for serious misconduct, which the attorney assured was "an extremely high bar." As town manager, plaintiff undertook a major project to renovate and lease the Town's Pomerleau Building. He gained voter approval on a renovation budget and negotiated a lease with a potential tenant. The selectboard contended plaintiff made certain misrepresentations about the proposed lease, which plaintiff denied. Selectboard chair James Rust informed plaintiff that the board had concerns about his performance and gave him a letter stating that the board would be conducting an inquiry. Rust called plaintiff and notified him that the selectboard would be meeting but that plaintiff was not obligated to attend (plaintiff nonetheless attended). When the meeting convened that evening, the selectboard immediately recessed to executive session. After forty-five minutes, the board asked plaintiff to join them, at which time they discussed the lease. The selectboard asked plaintiff if he wanted to resign, and he declined. Consequently, the board returned to public session and passed a vote of "no confidence." According to plaintiff, he did not understand until that time that the selectboard was terminating his employment. Upon review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the trial court's dismissal of the wrongful termination, Civil Rights Act, and state constitutional claims. The Court affirmed the court's dismissal of the promissory estoppel claim and its grant of summary judgment on the qualified immunity defense. View "Nelson v. Town of St. Johnsbury" on Justia Law

The Vermont Spay/Neuter Incentive Program (VSNIP) was created in 2006 to subsidize dog, cat, and wolf-hybrid sterilization procedures for low-income Vermonters. Sue Skaskiw and the organization she directed, Vermont Volunteer Services for Animals Humane Society (VVSA), administered the VSNIP program from its inception in 2006 until the expiration of Skaskiw's contract in October 2012. Defendant Vermont Agency of Agriculture initially managed the program but responsibility was transferred to defendant Department for Children and Families (DCF), a department within the Agency of Human Services, in 2011. Defendant Kristin Haas was an employee of the Agency of Agriculture; defendants Kathleen Smith and Carol Maloney were employees of DCF. Sometime after the program's inception, the Agency of Agriculture contracted with Skaskiw to run VSNIP. She still held the contract when responsibility shifted to DCF in 2011, but at that time DCF put the contract out for a competitive bid. Two bidders, Skaskiw and VT-CAN!, submitted proposals, and VT-CAN! won the contract. Skaskiw subsequently filed this lawsuit. Skaskiw appealed the trial court's decision to grant the motion to dismiss of defendants Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Department for Children and Families, Haas, Smith, and Maloney on Skaskiw's claims of defamation, violation of due process, economic interference, and failure to discharge a mandatory duty. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Skaskiw v. Vermont Agency of Agriculture" on Justia Law

Employer Maple Leaf Farm Association, Inc. appealed a decision of the Employment Security Board finding that its former employee Katherine Kelley was involuntarily terminated from her position and therefore eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Employer operated an intensive inpatient drug and alcohol treatment program. Claimant worked for employer as a part-time treatment counselor for seven years. Due to a conflict with a supervisor, claimant resigned from her position in writing on August 29, 2013. She stated in her letter to employer that her last day would be September 19, 2013, and employer allowed her to continue working. Four days later, on September 3, employer terminated her employment and escorted her off the premises. Claimant applied for unemployment compensation. The claims adjudicator determined that she was not entitled to benefits for the first two weeks after her termination because the accrued vacation pay that employer paid her during that period was in excess of her weekly benefit amount. The claims adjudicator further determined that claimant was not entitled to benefits because she had left employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to her employer. Employer appealed the referee’s decision to the Employment Security Board, which adopted the referee’s findings and affirmed its conclusions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Board's decision. View "Kelley v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Vermont State Employees' Association (VSEA) appealed a Vermont Labor Relations Board decision which found that the State was not required to give certain compensation to state employees in the weeks and months following Tropical Storm Irene.The storm had a particularly devastating effect on the complex of state buildings in Waterbury. Governor Peter Shumlin authorized the complete closure of Vermont state government for one day. The closure notice stated that only authorized critical staff persons should report for work. In the days that followed, various work arrangements were necessary because the Waterbury complex was generally unusable. The Vermont Department of Human Resources indicated that agencies with offices in the complex had implemented their Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP). These plans allow only specifically authorized critical staff to work in order to continue an agency’s essential functions during and immediately following an emergency situation. All other employees in the complex were instructed that they "should not report to work unless specifically authorized to do so by a supervisor." Eventually, most of the state employees in the complex were assigned to new work stations as agencies moved their operations. At first, there was uncertainty about the work requirements and compensation for state employees who had worked in the complex. Over time, management reached a position on those policies. The position was unacceptable to VSEA, the union that represents the state’s classified employee workforce. VSEA charged that the State’s position was inconsistent with three collective bargaining agreements as well as a state personnel policy. When the parties could not resolve the conflict, VSEA appealed to the Vermont Labor Relations Board. VSEA contended that the Board erred in interpreting certain terms of the emergency closing provision of the collective bargaining agreements between the State and VSEA. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Grievance of VSEA" on Justia Law

The single issue in this appeal was whether payments by employer 863 To Go, Inc. to its delivery drivers should have been excluded from the calculation of employer's contribution to Vermont's system of unemployment compensation. "In a process known to anyone who has ever ordered a pizza, the customer calls in his or her order. A bilateral contract based on an exchange of mutual promises is formed. The customer promises to pay for the meal either upon delivery or before. The price is set, except for any gratuity, as is the description of the meal. Employer promises to obtain the food and arrange for its delivery. . . . The delivery driver plays no discernible role in creating the contract of sale. The record contains no evidence that he or she can vary the terms of sale, either with respect to price or to product. The driver's only role is to deliver the food and to pick up the purchase price if it has not already been paid. He or she has not 'sold' anything. He or she has, obviously, 'delivered' dinner." Since the "selling" requirement of the exemption in section 1301(6)(C)(xxi) was not met, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Employment Security Board that employer was obligated to pay an unemployment compensation contribution to the Department of Labor with respect to its delivery drivers. View "863 To Go, Inc. v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law