Mortgage Bankers Association v. Solis
864 F. Supp. 2d 193
D.D.C.2012Background
- MAA sues DOL under the APA challenging the 2010 AI that withdrew the 2006 Opinion Letter and conflicts with the 2004 regulations.
- FLSA exemptions: admin exemption under 29 U.S.C. §213(a)(1) and implementing 29 C.F.R. §541.200, with §541.203(b) providing industry examples.
- Pre-2004, DOL issued opinion letters (1997 wholesale salesmen; 1999 loan officers) suggesting non-exemption for certain mortgage activities.
- On March 24, 2010, the DOL issued 2010 AI withdrawing the 2006 Opinion Letter and limiting exemption for mortgage loan officers to administrative work directly related to management or general operations.
- Association argues the 2010 AI violates the APA by not using notice-and-comment and misreads the regulations; court treats as summary-judgment motion.
- Court holds 2010 AI not inconsistent with 2004 regulations and that the Association fails under Paralyzed Veterans and MetWest doctrines; grants part and denies part of cross-motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paralyzed Veterans requires notice-and-comment for changing interpretation | Association relies on Paralyzed Veterans and Alaska Professional Hunters. | DOL argues Vermont Yankee controls and no extra procedures required. | Paralyzed Veterans controls; not satisfied here. |
| Whether 2010 AI is inconsistent with the 2004 regulations | 2010 AI contradicts 541.203(b) and 541.200. | 541.203(b) is illustrative, not an alternative test; 2010 AI aligns with 2004 regs. | Not inconsistent; 2010 AI not arbitrary or unlawful. |
| Whether MetWest/Alaska exceptions apply to require notice-and-comment | Reliance on prior interpretation creates obligation to provide notice and comment. | No substantial and justifiable reliance; MetWest distinction applies. | MetWest reliance not satisfied; no notice-and-comment requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D.C. Arena, 117 F.3d 586 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (interpretation changes require notice and comment when it carries the force of law)
- Alaska Professional Hunters Ass’n v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (reliance on longstanding interpretation requires notice and comment before change)
- MetWest, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 560 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (reliance-based threshold for Paralyzed Veterans exception)
- Monmouth Medical Ctr. v. Thompson, 257 F.3d 807 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (extension of Paralyzed Veterans considerations)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (S. Ct. 2009) (APA review not broadening notice-and-comment requirements in all changes)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (S. Ct. 1978) (notice-and-comment requirements are not universally mandatory beyond statute)