State ex rel. Bowling v. DeWine
| Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21AP-380 |
| Parties | State ex rel. Candy Bowling et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael DeWine et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No 21CVH07-4469)
On brief:
DannLaw, Brian D. Flick, Marc E. Dann, and Emily White Advocate Attorneys, LLP, and Andrew M. Engel, for appellants.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, Julie M. Pfeiffer, and Allison D Daniel, for appellee Ohio Governor Mike DeWine; Eric A. Baum, for appellee Director, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
Jones Day, Michael R. Gladman, and Elizabeth A. Benshoff, for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Daniel E. Shuey, and Erica M. Rodriguez, for Amici Curiae the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Business Roundtable, the Ohio Restaurant Association, the Ohio Hotel and Lodging Association, the Ohio Grocers Association, and the Ohio Trucking Association.
Policy Matters Ohio, and Hannah C. Halbert, for Amici Curiae Policy Matters Ohio, American Sustainable Business Council, National Employment Law Project, William E. Spriggs, Economic Policy Institute, and Andrew Stettner.
Argued:
Andrew M. Engel.
Julie M. Pfeiffer.
{¶ 1} After Governor DeWine terminated an agreement with the United States Department of Labor, thereby cutting off certain unemployment benefits authorized by Congress in the wake of the unemployment crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, Shawnee Huff, Candy Bowling, and David Willis (collectively, "Appellants") filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in the trial court against the Governor, Mike DeWine, and Matt Damschroder, the Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ("Director") (collectively with Governor DeWine, "Appellees"). The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denied appellants' motion and they filed this interlocutory appeal. As explained below, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it ruled that appellants had no likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, and we reverse.
{¶ 2} In response to the unprecedented economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act on March 27, 2020. Pub.L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (codified at 15 U.S.C Section 9001-9141). Title II of the CARES Act, the Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act, created a number of unemployment insurance benefits in response to the mass layoffs and job losses attributable to the pandemic. 15 U.S.C 9001 note. These benefits included Pandemic Unemployment Insurance ("PUA"), "a temporary federal program that provides up to thirty-nine weeks of benefits to individuals who are not otherwise eligible for state unemployment insurance benefits." Islam v. Cuomo, 475 F.Supp.3d 144, 155 (E.D.N.Y.2020); see 15 U.S.C. 9021. Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation ("PEUC") provided an additional 13 weeks of benefits to individuals who had "exhausted all rights" to regular state or federal unemployment compensation or were otherwise ineligible for such compensation. 15 U.S.C. 9025(A)(2)(a).
{¶ 3} The CARES Act also created Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation ("FPUC"). 15 U.S.C. 9023. From March 27 through July 31, 2020, FPUC provided "an additional amount of $600" per week in benefits to individuals receiving unemployment compensation. Pub.L. No. 116-36, Section 2104(b)(1)(B). On December 27, 2020, Congress reauthorized FPUC and allowed a weekly benefit until March 14, 2021 but lowered the benefit amount to $300 weekly. See Continued Assistance for Unemployed Workers Act of 2020, Pub.L. No. 116-260, Div. N, Title II, Subtitle A, Ch. 1, Subch. I, Section 203, 134 Stat. 1182, 1953 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 9023 (a) & (b)). The extended benefit period also applied to PUA and PEUC benefits. See Pub.L. No. 116-260, section 201 and 206. On March 11, 2021, Congress extended the PUA, PEUC, and FPUC benefit periods until September 6, 2021. See American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub.L. No. 117-2, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Section 9011, 9013 and 9016, 135 Stat. 4, 118-20, codified at 15 U.S.C. 9021(c), 9023(b)(3)(A)(iii) & (e)(2), and 9025(g).
{¶ 4} The CARES Act required the United States Secretary of Labor to provide PUA, PEUC, and FPUC benefits pursuant to agreements with states. See 15 U.S.C. 9021(f), 9023(a) and 9025(a). The provisions governing PEUC and FPUC benefits contained identical language concerning a state's discretion to enter into and end any agreement for benefits: 15 U.S.C. 9023(a) and 9025(a)(1).
{¶ 5} On March 28, 2020, Governor DeWine entered into an agreement with the Secretary of Labor authorizing a number of CARES Act unemployment benefits for Ohioans, including PUA, PEUC, and FPUC benefits. (Mar. 28, 2020 Agreement Between the State of Ohio and the Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (hereinafter, "Agreement"), Ex. B. to July 22, 2021 Joint Stipulations of All Parties (hereinafter, "Joint Stipulations").)
{¶ 6} On May 13, 2021, the Governor announced that Ohio would terminate its participation in FPUC. (Joint Stipulations at ¶ 5.) In a letter sent to the United States Department of Labor on May 24, 2021, he stated that FPUC "will end with the week ending June 26, 2021," and gave the 30-day notice of intent to terminate participation required by the CARES Act. (Ex. A to Joint Stipulations.) He cited "positive trends" in the Ohio economy, including "a current low unemployment rate of 4.7 percent" and the increasing number of vaccinations in the state. Id. The Governor acknowledged that FPUC had "been a great help to Ohioans in need" and "a lifeline" that had "helped buy groceries and pay rent." Id. However, in his estimation, "[t]he need for workers is apparent in many industries, including restaurants, retail and manufacturing." Id. The Governor also stated:
{¶ 7} On July 16, 2021, appellants filed a complaint for mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief with an accompanying motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in the trial court against appellees. In the complaint, Mr. Huff alleged that after his layoff from a call center in February 2021 "due to the pandemic," he was dependent upon "$339.00 in unemployment compensation plus $300.00 weekly in FPUC" that he received to support his family. (July 16, 2021 Compl. at ¶ 9.) Without these benefits, Mr. Huff alleged, he would "lose the ability to pay all of his living expenses including his housing, utilities, and food."[1] Id. at ¶ 10.
{¶ 8} Ms. Bowling attested to unemployment from a layoff that had occurred in January 2020. Id. at Ex. 1, Bowling Aff. at ¶ 4. According to Ms. Bowling, she used the unemployment benefits she had received, including FPUC, to pay for "household expenses including rent, utilities and food," as well as for "medical expenses and necessary expenses for [her] service animal." (Bowling Aff. at ¶ 8.) Her FPUC benefit had terminated on June 26, 2021, and, as a result, Ms. Bowling stated that she "face[d] the immediate financial distress of being unable to pay for my on-going expenses such as rent, utilities, and food." Id. at ¶ 9-10.
{¶ 9} Mr. Willis attested to similar circumstances. He had been laid off from his position as a landscaper in March 2020 "due to the Pandemic," used unemployment compensation and FPUC to pay for household expenses, utilities, and food, and faced the "immediate financial distress of being unable to pay for" those expenses after the termination of his FPUC benefits on June 26, 2021. (Compl. at Ex. 2, Willis Aff. at ¶ 4-10.)
{¶ 10} The complaint alleged that, by terminating the agreement for FPUC benefits, the Governor and Director violated the mandate of R.C. 4141.43(I) that the Director both "cooperate with" the United States Department of Labor and "secure * * * all advantages available" under the federal unemployment statutes listed in the statute. (Compl. at ¶ 34.) In Count I of the complaint, they sought a declaratory judgment that the Governor and Director "must secure all possible federal pandemic unemployment benefits to Ohioans." Id. at ¶ 40. In Count II, appellants sought an injunction enjoining the termination of such benefits. Id. at ¶ 41-48. Count III sought a writ of mandamus "requiring the Defendants to take all actions necessary to immediately restore FPUC benefits as is required by R.C. 4141.43(I)." Id. at ¶ 57.
{¶ 11} Appellants also sought immediate relief by filing a motion under Civ.R. 65 for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. (July 16, 2021 Mot.) Appellants argued that they were substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claim because the "explicit text" of R.C. 4141.43(I) required appellees to "secure all possible federal pandemic benefits available to unemployed Ohioans" under the federal unemployment statutes it listed, and being unable to "meet their basic living...
To continue reading
Request your trial