North Carolina Growers' Ass'n v. United Farm Workers
702 F.3d 755
4th Cir.2012Background
- The Department suspended the 2008 H-2A regulations and reinstated the 1987 regulations for a nine-month period in 2009.
- The 1987 regulations established AEWR-based wage requirements and other terms for H-2A and affected Christmas-tree farm classifications under FLSA.
- In 2008, the Department issued substantial changes to the H-2A program, which many employers relied upon for the 2009 season.
- NCGA challenged the 2009 Suspension as APA rule making requiring notice and comment; the district court enjoined the suspension.
- In 2010, new regulations largely restored pre-2008 terms, but the 2010 rules are not at issue on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 2009 reinstatement constitute rule making | NCGA says reinstatement produced a new rule requiring notice and comment | Department argues reinstatement is not rule making, or is exempt | Yes, it qualifies as rule making |
| If rule making occurred, was there notice and comment | Department failed to provide proper notice and meaningful comment on merits | Department complied with notice and comment requirements and accepted comments | No, notice and comment were not satisfied |
| Did the Department properly invoke the good cause exception | No good cause was shown or properly invoked | Department relied on good cause to waive procedures | Not properly invoked; good cause not shown |
| Did the content restrictions in comment period render actions arbitrary | Content restrictions prevented meaningful consideration of relevant issues | Comments were still received and considered as to procedural aspects | Yes, content restrictions rendered action arbitrary and capricious |
| Did interpretive classification of Christmas-tree workers affect the outcome | Classification under FLSA was interpretive and not subject to notice | Interpretation matters framed via prior NCGA decision and Skidmore deference | Interpretation not subject to notice; nonetheless rule-making flaws tainted action |
Key Cases Cited
- Spartan Radiocasting Co. v. FCC, 619 F.2d 314 (4th Cir. 1980) (notice and comment aids informed decisionmaking)
- Chocolate Mfrs. Ass’n v. Block, 755 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1985) (notice-and-comment promotes public participation)
- Kempthorne v. EPA, 473 F.3d 102 (4th Cir. 2006) (agency must show legitimate basis for departing from procedures)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. M. United, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard; requires reasoned decision)