Chief Judge Merrick Garland
In the wake of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s death, there has been a lot of political hullabaloo about the confirmation process for Chief Justice Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit, President Obama’s nominee, to fill the position. However, little of the political maneuverings has anything to do with what is most important to small business owners: whether his judicial opinions have helped or harmed businesses.
Let’s take a look at a few opinions authored by Justice Merrick to see what we can glean.
First, there are several federal agencies that have regulatory power over American businesses including: the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Trade Commission. Justice Garland has a reputation for giving deference to agency determinations. Most of the time, agency contact with a business happens because the business has been accused of violating a rule, regulation, or statute.
When a business is appealing an adverse agency decision, Justice Garland appears to rule in favor of the agency more often than not.
Here is an example that explains why:
In a case involving the escape of a large amount of a corrosive and deadly chemical that sent 150 people to the hospital, the OSHA cited the business for multiple safety violations. The case went to a hearing in front of an administrative law judge who affirmed most of the violations. The company appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and in upholding the violations, Justice Garland wrote that the Court must uphold OSHA’s fact findings and conclusions so long as they are supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.
This is simply a restatement of what the standard of review already is.
However, Justice Garland went on to quote a prior D.C. Circuit opinion stating, “We defer to [an agency’s] interpretation of the Act and regulations, upholding such interpretations so long as they are consistent with the statutory language and otherwise reasonable.”
The opinion goes on to painstakingly review OSHA’s fact findings. What this opinion tells me is that Justice Garland is not an activist judge. He follows historical precedents. Unfortunately, we are in an era when those precedents frequently favor employees over their employers.
This is not to say that Justice Garland hasn’t authored decisions favorable to businesses. He has.
When an employee wrongly tried to invoke protection of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Justice Garland sided with the employer. The employee asked for reduced work hours as a reasonable accommodation for arthritis. Days later, she fell and stopped working. For four months the employer asked for information about her health condition. She gave none, so the employer asked her to return to work. She didn’t. The employer terminated her. After that, she sent a doctor’s note saying she was totally disabled and could not work. She claimed the employer failed to give reasonable accommodation and retaliated against her. The trial court sided with the employer, and the employee appealed. Justice Garland wrote, “there can be no genuine dispute that [the employee] was not a qualified individual . . .one who can, with or without reasonable accommodation, ‘eperform the essential functions’ of her position.” Noting that an essential job function is the ability to appear for work, the Court found that the employee’s termination was legitimate, so there was no retaliation.
These are only two of the many legal opinions authored by Justice Garland.
However, they illustrate that he is a jurist that painstakingly reviews the facts of each case and who analyzes and complies with legal precedent. This is consistent with the observations of most commentators who have described Justice Garland as a moderate and as more conservative than President Obama’s previous nominees. What is apparent from the two cases described here is that Justice Garland appears to be neutral – neither pro-business nor anti-business.
Interestingly, Justice Garland’s father ran an advertising business out of the family home. Justice Garland describes it as the smallest of small businesses. He is known for being tough on crime and for having served as lead investigator and prosecutor of the Oklahoma City bombing case. Perhaps most importantly, Justice Garland has garnered praise from both sides of the aisle – Republicans and Democrats.
Regardless of the outcome, the path this nominee takes through the confirmation process will be interesting to watch.