Mader v. Health Care Auth.
| Decision Date | 14 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 47189-9-I.,47189-9-I. |
| Citation | 109 Wash. App. 904,37 P.3d 1244 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Eva MADER, Teresa Boyden (a/k/a Knudsen), and a class similarly-situated individuals, Appellants, v. The HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, Respondent, The State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, Intervenor/Respondent. |
Stephen K. Festor, Stephen Kolden Strong, Seattle, for Appellants.
Derek Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Ann Burke Cain, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondents.
Two community college instructors appeal a portion of the superior court's order on a petition for judicial review of an administrative decision by the Health Care Authority (HCA). The HCA denied the instructors' claim for employer contributions to the premiums for their health care coverage during the 1999 summer quarter. On review, the court certified a class of instructors that includes the two instructors who initiated the proceedings in the HCA. The court then affirmed the HCA on different grounds. It held that instructors who do not work during summer quarters are not entitled to the employer contribution because they were not State employees during that time. The court made additional rulings with respect to other members of the class, which we will discuss later in this opinion.
We hold that part-time instructors who do not sign contracts and do not work during the summer quarter are not employees of the State during that period. Thus, they are not entitled to employer contributions to the premiums for employee health benefits during that time, and we affirm the trial court to that extent.
We also hold that the trial court exceeded the scope of its authority by concluding that part-time instructors who sign summer quarter contracts are entitled to employer contributions to the premiums for employee health benefits during that period. We conclude that the trial court similarly acted beyond the scope of its authority by retaining jurisdiction over part-time instructors who work on other than a quarterly basis. Accordingly, we reverse those parts of the court's decision.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach the State's argument that Mader and Knudsen lack standing to represent part-time instructors who sign summer quarter contracts and those who work on other than a quarterly basis. Nor do we address the State's argument that those instructors failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in this case.
Eva Mader has been a part-time German instructor at North Seattle Community College for more than twenty years. The college employs her on a quarter-to-quarter basis. Teresa Knudsen (f/k/a Boyden) has been a part-time English and writing instructor at the Community Colleges of Spokane for more than ten years. They also employ her on a quarter-to-quarter basis.
A full-time workload in each instructor's discipline is fifteen credits in any given quarter, which typically involves teaching three classes. Mader has consistently worked more than half of a full-time workload during the fall, winter, and spring quarters. But she has never taught during the summer quarters.
Knudsen similarly works more than half of a full-time workload during the fall, winter, and spring quarters. She has taught during some summer academic quarters, but not in the summer of 1999.
It appears that Mader and Knudsen have had health benefits coverage throughout. During the fall, winter, and spring quarters, their colleges paid the employer contribution to the premiums for employee coverage. However, these instructors have paid their own premiums for coverage during the summer quarters when they did not work for the colleges.
In December 1998, Mader and Knudsen commenced proceedings in which they sought a determination as to whether they were eligible for employer contributions to the premiums for their health benefits during "the summer months." The Deputy Program Manager of the Public Employees Benefits Board Programs within the HCA determined that Mader and Knudsen were ineligible for such contributions during that time. Mader and Knudsen appealed to the agency administrator, asking that the HCA "determine and clarify their eligibility for state-paid health benefits during the summer months or `off season.'"1 The State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (the Board) intervened as a party to the administrative proceedings.
Thereafter, the HCA issued a decision denying Mader and Knudsen employer contributions for their health care coverage during the 1999 summer quarter.2 The HCA concluded that they were ineligible for the contribution because they did not teach at least fifty percent of a full-time workload during the 1999 summer quarter. As they had done in the past, Mader and Knudsen each paid their own premiums to maintain coverage for that quarter.3
Mader and Knudsen sought judicial review, and the trial court certified the appeal as a class action. In its subsequent decision, the trial court identified three separate groups within the certified class, and either determined their eligibility for benefits or retained the jurisdiction to do so.
The first subgroup consists of those part-time instructors who do not teach and do not sign a contract for the summer quarter. Mader and Knudsen were within this subgroup during the 1999 summer quarter. The trial court affirmed the HCA's decision to the extent that it denied employer-paid health benefits to this group. In doing so, it rejected the HCA's reasoning, but affirmed on the alternative ground that instructors who do not sign a contract and work in the summer quarter are not employees of the State during that period. Because they are not employees, the court concluded, they are not entitled to have the State pay premiums for their benefits.
The second subgroup consists of those part-time instructors who sign a contract to teach during the summer quarter, but are denied benefits because they are considered to work less than half of a full-time workload. The trial court reversed the HCA's decision to the extent that it denied employer contributions to these instructors.
The third subgroup consists of part-time instructors who work on other than a quarterly basis and who do not receive employer-paid health benefits during the summer quarter. Because the parties did not address this group in their briefs, the trial court retained jurisdiction to determine the eligibility of these instructors in later proceedings.
Mader and Knudsen appeal from that portion of the trial court's order denying employer contributions to the premiums for health benefits for part-time instructors who neither sign quarterly contracts nor work during the summer. We granted the motion for discretionary review of the HCA and the Board (collectively "the State") to address the trial court's determinations as to the two remaining groups within the certified class: those who sign quarterly contracts in the summer and do not work, and those who work on other than a quarterly basis.4
Mader and Knudsen argue that the trial court erred by concluding that part-time instructors who neither sign contracts nor work during the summer quarter are ineligible for employer contributions to premiums for employee health benefits during that period. They maintain that the decisions of the HCA and the trial court conflict with the statutes and regulations governing health benefits for part-time community college instructors. They also argue that the decisions are inconsistent with the colleges' position that part-time instructors who do not teach during the summer are ineligible for unemployment benefits. We reject both arguments.
We first address a threshold issue. A theme that underlies the arguments of Mader and Knudsen is that the decisions that we review are unfair to part-time instructors because they treat such instructors differently from others. But the fairness of the legislative scheme before us is a matter for the Legislature to decide, not this court. There being no constitutional challenge to the laws at issue here and no other extraordinary showing, our tasks are limited to construing the governing statutes and regulations and applying them to the situations of those individuals properly before us.
When reviewing an administrative action, we sit in the same position as the trial court and apply the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) directly to the record before the agency.5 We will grant relief from an administrative decision if the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, there is not substantial evidence to support the decision, or the decision was arbitrary or capricious.6 The burden of proving that the agency action was invalid for any of these reasons lies with the party challenging the action.7 We review de novo the trial court's legal conclusion that part-time instructors who neither sign contracts nor work during the summer quarter are ineligible for the employer contribution to the premiums for health benefits during that time because they are not then employees of the State.8
Turning to the decision of the trial court, it is undisputed that neither Mader nor Knudsen signed contracts or taught during the 1999 summer quarter. It is equally undisputed that Mader's contract with North Seattle Community College expressly states that hers is a 9 Both instructors appear to acknowledge that they are "part-time" employees under governing statutes and regulations. They nevertheless argue that they are also "career seasonal employees"10 and "academic employees"11 and thus entitled to employer contributions under the law.
Mader and Knudsen first argue that they are "career seasonal employees" and are simply on vacation during their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AHO Constr. I, Inc. v. City of Moxee
...v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board , 100 Wash. App. at 683, 997 P.2d 405 (2000) ; Mader v. Health Care Authority , 109 Wash. App. 904, 922 n.37, 37 P.3d 1244 (2002)rev’d in part , 149 Wash.2d 458, 70 P.3d 931 (2003). Office of Attorney General and Wells illuminate the "m......
-
Herman v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd.
...board's order as doing so. ¶ 19 The superior court reviews agency orders in a limited appellate capacity. Mader v. Health Care Auth., 109 Wash.App. 904, 922, 37 P.3d 1244 (2002), rev'd in part on other grounds, 149 Wash.2d 458, 70 P.3d 931 (2003). Mr. Herman's appeal from the board's decisi......
-
Len v. Office of the Superintendent of Pub. Instruction
...Line, 113 Wn. App. 700, 704, 54 P.3d 711 (2002)). 5. Mitchell Bros. Truck Line, 113 Wn. App. at 704 (quoting Mader v. Health Care Auth., 109 Wn. App. 904, 911, 37 P.3d 1244 (2002), reversed on other grounds, 149 Wn.2d 458, 70 P.3d 931 (2003)); see Campbell v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 180 Wn.2d 566......
-
Len v. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
...700, 704, 54 P.3d 711 (2002)). [5] Mitchell Bros. Truck Line, 113 Wn.App. at 704 (quoting Mader v. Health Care Autk, 109 Wn.App. 904, 911, 37 P.3d 1244 (2002), reversed on other grounds, 149 Wn.2d 458, 70 P.3d 931 (2003)); see Campbell v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 180 Wn.2d 566, 571, 326 P.3d 713 (......