Lang v. Dir., Ohio Department of Job & Family Services
134 Ohio St. 3d 296
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Congress created ATAA in 2002 to provide wage supplements for older workers reemployed at lower wages.
- ODJFS, under contract with the U.S. DOL, administers ATAA in Ohio and follows TEGL 2-03 guidance.
- TEGL 2-03 requires ATAA eligibility to be verified at reemployment, including age 50+ at that time.
- In 2007, Lang, Laibe, and Sharp were denied ATAA because they were not 50 at reemployment, despite later eligibility positions.
- Courts below disagreed on whether age must be 50 at reemployment or at application; some read statute ambiguously, others narrowly.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the 50+ requirement is ambiguous and whether ODJFS deference to DOL interpretation is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 19 U.S.C. 2318(a)(3)(B) ambiguous on the 50-year age requirement? | Lang argues the statute clearly requires age at application. | ODJFS argues ambiguity exists, allowing TEGL 2-03 reading. | Yes, ambiguous; both readings reasonable. |
| Whether ODJFS’s interpretation is entitled to deference | Applicants contend deference to agency interpretation is improper. | ODJFS’s reading is reasonable and based on agency expertise. | ODJFS’s interpretation is entitled to deference. |
| Whether the court should apply Chevron or deferential standard of review | Argue against deference absent clear ambiguity. | Statutory ambiguity warrants deference to agency construction. | Deferential review applies; interpretation upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ceccarelli v. Levin, 127 Ohio St.3d 231 (2010) (statutory interpretation framework; de novo review for ambiguity)
- Irvine v. Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Rev., 19 Ohio St.3d 15 (1985) (limited standard of review for commission decisions)
- Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2011-Ohio-2897 (Ohio Supreme Court 2011) (deference when statute is ambiguous)
- Bernardini v. Conneaut Area City School Dish Bd. of Edn., 58 Ohio St.2d 1 (1979) (enforce clear and unambiguous statutory language)
- Crowl v. DeLuca, 29 Ohio St.2d 53 (1972) (rarely modify clear statutory language)
- Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 20 Ohio St.2d 125 (1969) (duty to give effect to words used in statute)