Griz One Firefighting v. State

• Decision Date: 10 November 2020
• Docket Number: DA 19-0490
• Citation: 2020 MT 285,402 Mont. 115,475 P.3d 739
• Parties: GRIZ ONE FIREFIGHTING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE of Montana, Department of Labor and Industry, Employment Relations Division and Matthew Sean West, Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

402 Mont. 115

475 P.3d 739

2020 MT 285

GRIZ ONE FIREFIGHTING, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.STATE of Montana, Department of Labor and Industry, Employment Relations Division and Matthew Sean West, Defendants and Appellees.

DA 19-0490

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: September 16, 2020

Decided: November 10, 2020

For Appellant: Scott A. Everard, Attorney at Law, Stevensville, Montana

For Appellee Matthew Sean West: Hannah Stone, Milodragovich, Dale & Steinbrenner, P.C., Missoula, Montana

For Appellee State of Montana: Rune Vander Wey, Special Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Griz One Firefighting, LLC ("Griz One") appeals the Fourth Judicial District Court's order denying its petition for judicial review of a default order and determination by the Department of Labor and Industry Wage and Hour Division ("DLI"). Griz One asks us to reverse the District Court's judgment in favor of Matthew Sean West ("West"), awarding him a total of $11,241.50 in back wages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees. We affirm and remand for calculation of attorney fees and costs on appeal.

¶2 We consider the following restated issues:

1. Did the District Court properly conclude that DLI notified Griz One of West's wage claim?

2. Is Griz One entitled to relief on its due process and jurisdictional arguments?

3. Was the District Court correct in concluding that Mont. R. Evid. 605 does not apply to a DLI Compliance Specialist?

4. Was the District Court's award of attorney fees and costs to West reasonable and based on competent evidence?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 Griz One is a wildland firefighting company based in Missoula, Montana. In the summer of 2017, it hired West as a wildland firefighter engine boss at the rate of $350 per day. West worked for Griz One over several weeks before abruptly quitting his employment. On West's final paycheck, Griz One reduced his pay-rate to $25 an hour, for a total pay of $1,800, instead of the $3,500 he would have received at the $350 per day contract rate.

¶4 DLI received a wage claim from West on November 8, 2017, seeking $1,700 in back wages from Griz One. On November 9, 2017, DLI mailed a wage claim notice letter ("Notice Letter") to Griz One, informing it of West's wage claim and instructing it on how to proceed if it disputed the claim. The letter informed Griz One it had until November 23—14 days—to respond. The Notice Letter also informed Griz One that under § 39-3-206, MCA, and Admin. R. M. 26.16.7556(1)(a), "a penalty of 110% of the wages claimed may be assessed and awarded to the claimant." Griz One did not respond.

¶5 Based on the initial information West submitted in his wage claim and Griz One's failure to respond to the Notice Letter, DLI issued a Determination against Griz One on December 6, 2017. DLI found that Griz One owed West $1,700 in unpaid wages and assessed a 110% penalty of $1,870 against Griz One for its failure to respond to the claim. The Determination informed Griz One of its appeal rights; it could request either a redetermination or an appeal to a contested hearing. The Determination noted that, pursuant to Admin. R. M. 24.16.7534, any request had to be made by December 21—15 days from the date the Determination was mailed. A request for redetermination was to contain the reason for the request as well as "any new or additional information that would alter or affect the original Determination." Griz One did not timely request a redetermination or otherwise respond to the Determination.

¶6 On December 29, 2017, after Griz One did not appeal the Determination or provide DLI the $3,570 in wages and penalties, DLI issued an Order on Default requiring Griz One to provide DLI the full amount due to West within 15 days. The Order on Default informed Griz One that if it had not received the Determination, it could request administrative relief in accordance with Admin. R. M. 24.16.7544. A copy of the Determination was provided with the order.

¶7 On January 7, 2018, Griz One responded to DLI by letter requesting a redetermination of the wage claim. Griz One stated, "[w]e did not receive [DLI's] Determination for the wage claim by mail," and expressed surprise that the Determination was not sent by certified mail. Griz One's letter explained that Griz One had employed West during the 2017 fire season, that he quit on August 2, 2017, and that he was paid $25 per hour on his final paycheck. The letter enclosed a copy of West's final paystub.

¶8 DLI denied Griz One's request by letter dated January 12, 2018 ("Denial Letter"). Though Griz One's letter untimely requested a redetermination, DLI appears to have treated its letter as a request for administrative relief for failure to receive a determination by mail.¹ DLI denied Griz One's request pursuant to Admin. R. M. 24.16.7544 because "[Griz One] was served properly." The Denial Letter informed Griz One of its right to judicial review.

¶9 Griz One appealed to the District Court, requesting judicial review of DLI's Order on Default and denial of its request for redetermination. Following oral argument, the District Court denied Griz One's petition for judicial review from the bench and held that West was entitled to recover attorney fees and costs.²

¶10 West's attorney, Hannah Stone ("Stone"), subsequently filed an affidavit detailing her fees and expenses in the matter, totaling $7,601.50 in attorney and paralegal fees and $70 in court costs. Griz One then filed a document entitled "Jurisdiction Issues and Objections to Attorney Fees," arguing that the initial Notice Letter was defective because it allegedly contained an inaccurate response date and therefore that DLI never had jurisdiction over the matter in the first place. Griz One argued further that the Notice Letter used confusing and misleading language, amounting to a due process violation. Griz One objected to the reasonableness of the claimed attorney fees, arguing among other things that Stone's $210 per hour rate was excessive; her paralegal's $90 per hour rate was excessive; Griz One prevailed on a burden of proof issue and attorney fees therefore should not be awarded; and certain descriptions of work performed were vague and/or improperly redacted.

¶11 The District Court addressed Griz One's objections in its Order Awarding Attorney Fees and Denying Other Motion(s). Finding that the claimed attorney fees and costs were proper, Griz One's arguments regarding notice had previously been addressed, and Griz One's personal jurisdiction arguments were untimely, the District Court awarded West $7,671.50 in attorney fees and costs. It entered final judgment in West's favor for $11,241.50 in back wages, penalties, attorney fees, and costs.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶12 The Montana Administrative Procedures Act ("MAPA") governs judicial review of final agency decisions. Mont. Fish, Wildlife & Parks v. Trap Free Mont. Pub. Lands , 2018 MT 120, ¶ 11, 391 Mont. 328, 417 P.3d 1100. "We review agency findings to determine whether they are clearly erroneous." Talon Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. State Dep't. of Labor & Indus. , 2008 MT 376, ¶ 19, 346 Mont. 499, 198 P.3d 213. An agency's conclusions of law are reviewed for correctness. Talon , ¶ 19 (citing Owens v. Mont. Dep't. of Revenue , 2007 MT 298, ¶ 12, 340 Mont. 48, 172 P.3d 1227 ). "The same standard of review applies to both the district court's review of the agency decision and this Court's review of the district court's decision." Trap Free Mont. Pub. Lands , ¶ 11 (citation omitted). Review is limited to the administrative record. Owens v. Mont. Dep't. of Revenue , 2006 MT 36, ¶ 12, 331 Mont. 166, 130 P.3d 1256 (citing § 2-4-704(1), MCA ). We do not "substitute [our] judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." Section 2-4-704(2), MCA. Under MAPA, a reviewing court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(i) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(ii) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(iii) made upon unlawful procedure;

(iv) affected by other error of law;

(v) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; [or] (vi) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Section 2-4-704(2), MCA ; see also Trap Free Mont. Pub. Lands , ¶ 11 ; Williamson v. Mont. Pub. Serv. Comm'n. , 2012 MT 32, ¶ 25, 364 Mont. 128, 272 P.3d 71.

¶13 "We review a district court's award of attorney fees in accordance with § 39-3-214, MCA." Talon , ¶ 21. When based on competent evidence, we do not disturb the amount awarded unless there is an abuse of discretion. Talon , ¶ 21. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, without employment of conscientious judgment, or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in a substantial injustice. Talon , ¶ 21 (citing Jarvenpaa v. Glacier Elec. Coop. , 1998 MT 306, ¶ 13, 292 Mont. 118, 970 P.2d 84 ).

DISCUSSION

¶14 1. Did the District Court properly conclude that DLI notified Griz One of West's wage claim?

¶15 Griz One challenges the District Court's conclusion that Griz One failed to rebut the presumption that "[a] letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail." See § 26-1-602(24), MCA. Griz One first contends that DLI employed the wrong burden of proof when it relied on Admin. R. M. 24.16.7544 in advising Griz One that it "was served properly." Admin. R. M. 24.16.7544(1) reads:

A party which alleges that it did not receive timely notice by mail of the claim, determination or hearing process provided by these rules has the burden of proof of showing that the party ought to be granted relief. The party seeking relief must present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the statutory

...