2022 Ohio 4677
Ohio2022Background
- TWISM Enterprises, LLC applied for an Ohio certificate of authorization to provide engineering services and designated James Cooper—a state‑registered engineer who performed all of TWISM’s engineering work—as its "manager." Cooper provided services as an independent contractor (1099), and TWISM’s operating agreement vested him with management authority.
- Ohio law (R.C. 4733.16(D)) requires a firm to designate one or more "full‑time partners, managers, members, officers, or directors" who are "responsible for and in responsible charge" of the firm’s professional‑engineering activities; the Board must issue a certificate if statutory requirements are met.
- The Ohio Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors denied TWISM’s application, construing the statute to require that a designated "full‑time manager" be a W‑2 employee rather than an independent contractor.
- An administrative hearing officer and the Board upheld the denial. The Hamilton County common pleas court reversed without deferring to the Board’s statutory interpretation; the First District Court of Appeals reversed that judgment, finding the statute ambiguous and deferring to the Board.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to decide (1) whether courts must defer to agency statutory interpretations and (2) whether the statute precludes an independent contractor from serving as a firm’s full‑time manager in responsible charge.
- The Supreme Court held that Ohio courts are never required to defer to an agency’s legal interpretation (deference is permissive and only relevant when a statute is genuinely ambiguous) and, applying independent review, concluded the statute does not preclude an independent contractor from serving as a full‑time manager in responsible charge; it reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | TWISM’s Argument | Board’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) What deference must courts give agency statutory interpretations? | Courts may consider agency interpretations but are not required to defer; judicial interpretation is ultimate. | Courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation (either always or when statute is ambiguous). | Deference is never mandatory; courts may consider agency views only permissively and usually only when text is genuinely ambiguous. |
| 2) Does R.C. 4733.16(D) preclude an independent contractor from serving as a firm’s full‑time manager in responsible charge? | Yes—Cooper meets the statute: he is full‑time under the Board’s rule and is designated responsible for and in responsible charge of TWISM’s engineering. | No—A manager in responsible charge must be a W‑2 employee; independent contractors lack requisite control/liability. | No—the statute does not require an employment (W‑2) relationship; an independent contractor may be a full‑time manager and be in responsible charge if the statutory elements are met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (federal doctrine requiring deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes discussed and distinguished)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (agency interpretations may have persuasive weight depending on their persuasiveness)
- State ex rel. Clark v. Great Lakes Constr. Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 320 (2003) (Ohio case adopting a mandatory‑deference formulation cited and reevaluated)
- State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110 (2008) (Ohio case applying ambiguity‑triggered deference cited and reevaluated)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (foundational principle that courts have the ultimate authority to say what the law is)