Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Labor Standards Division
402 S.W.3d 218
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- April 28, 2008: Tennessee Department inspector conducted an unannounced inspection of Publix in Chattanooga and requested minor records.
- Publix maintained records on site and informed inspector records could be viewed after contacting Publix’s HR manager; inspector demanded production within one hour.
- Publix furnished all required records the next day; the Department assessed 14 violations (one per minor) and $14,000 total penalties.
- Publix challenged the penalties; after hearings, the penalties were reduced to $4,200 by a Commissioner’s Designee.
- Trial court upheld the Department’s decision; Publix appealed arguing lack of substantial evidence and constitutional defenses.
- The court reversed penalties for subsections (1) and (4) and remanded to vacate citations; costs awarded to Publix.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Publix violated § 50-5-111(1) by failing to maintain records on site | Publix maintained records on site; lack of on-site production within one hour not proof of nonexistence. | Record production within one hour implied records were not on site when requested. | Reversed; insufficient substantial evidence that records were not maintained on site. |
| Whether the Department could penalize under § 50-5-111(4) for not producing records within one hour | No time limit in statute or regulation; records furnished next day; policy is not binding regulation. | Department policy of one-hour production is a reasonable interpretation to ensure timely inspection. | Reversed; no statutory basis for one-hour requirement; policy not an enforceable regulation; Fourth Amendment analysis required. |
| Whether the Department’s Fourth Amendment defense to warrantless inspections is valid | Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless inspections; department cannot penalize for asserting rights. | Grocery industry not highly privacy-protected; pervasively regulated industry exception may apply. | Reversed; Department failed to establish pervasively regulated status or weakened privacy expectations; cannot penalize for Fourth Amendment rights. |
| Whether the Department properly applied Fourth Amendment framework to administrative inspections | McLaughlin standard requires meaningful safeguards and warrants where needed; one-hour policy voids safeguards. | Regulatory scheme allows prompt inspections; policy is reasonable under Burger framework. | Reversed; McLaughlin framework requires notice, process, and warrant when necessary; no sufficient basis to justify immediate production. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Kings Island, Div. of Taft Broad. Co., 849 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1988) (pervasively regulated industry exception; warrantless inspections require safeguards)
- See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1967) (home/business search presumptively unreasonable without warrant)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1987) (privacy expectations in business context; regulatory inspections)
- California Bankers Ass’n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1974) (economic regulation and information gathering; privacy considerations)
- U.S. v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 (U.S. 1950) (inspection powers and record-keeping regulations)
- Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (administrative subpoenas; inspection authority)
- U.S. v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1972) (pervasively regulated industry and warrant exceptions)
- Colonnade Catering Corp. v. U.S., 397 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1970) (inspection authority and regulatory inspection framework)
- State v. Kirkland, 655 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. 1983) (historical state regulation of certain businesses; fourth amendment context)
- Clay County Manor, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Health & Env’t, 849 S.W.2d 755 (Tenn. 1993) (unannounced inspections context; no direct Fourth Amendment discussion but authority question)