Opinion ID: 75991
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DOL Opinion Letters

Text: 21 In its decision on the motions for summary judgment, the district court did not consider the DOL opinion letters; in fact, it stated that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, it could not consider the letters as part of the summary judgment decision. In failing to consider the opinion letters, the court erred. The Supreme Court has held in Skidmore v. Swift that the rulings, interpretations and opinions of the Administrator under this Act, while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). That the opinion letters should be considered, however, does not render them dispositive. We turn to a consideration of these letters and the amount of deference they are due. 22 Although a DOL opinion letter is created through means less formal than notice and comment rulemaking, it is not automatically deprive[d] ... of the judicial deference otherwise its due. Barnhart v. Walton, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 1265, 1271, 152 L.Ed.2d 330 (2002). Agency interpretations expressed in opinion letters must be viewed through the standard enunciated in Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161. See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000) (reaffirming the applicability of Skidmore to opinion letters). The Skidmore Court held that when considering the deference to rulings, interpretations and opinions of the Administrator, the weight of such a judgment in a particular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control. Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161; see also Christensen, 529 U.S. at 587, 120 S.Ct. 1655 ([I]nterpretations contained in formats such as opinion letters are entitled to respect under our decision in [ Skidmore ], but only to the extent that those interpretations have the power to persuade .... (quotations and citations omitted)). 23 Opinion Letters Nos. 937 and 1139 support the Farmworkers' position that the transportation costs at issue here are an incident of and necessary to the employment, for they characterize such travel costs as a cost incidental to the employer's recruitment program. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Op. Ltr. of the Wage-Hour Adm'r No. 1139 (WH-92) (Dec. 10, 1970); U.S. Dept. of Labor, Op. Ltr. of the Wage-Hour Adm'r No. 937 (Feb. 4, 1969) (travel costs are a cost incidental to the recruitment program of the contractor). The Growers contend, however, that because the letters are conclusory, they are not entitled to any deference or respect under Skidmore. 12 24 In its first opinion letter on this issue, the Wage-Hour Administrator refers to a previous situation where it found that transportation costs were to be borne by the employer as a cost incidental to the recruitment program. Op. Ltr. No. 937. The letter, however, does not offer any reasoning for this conclusion. Later opinion letters simply state that transportation costs to and from the point of hire have been consistently regarded as a cost to be borne by the employer. Op. Ltr. No. 1139. The most recent Opinion Letter simply offers, in a conclusory fashion, that transportation costs are deemed to be primarily for the benefit of the employer. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Op. Ltr. of the Wage-Hour Adm'r No. 1721 (June 27, 1990). Because of this lack of explanation, it is impossible to weigh the validity of its reasoning or the thoroughness [] in its consideration. Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161; see also Kilgore v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., Inc., 160 F.3d 294, 302-03 (6th Cir.1998) (finding that the Wage & Hour Administrator's opinion letters relied on do not have any persuasive value because the opinion letters provide no reasoning or statutory analysis to support their conclusion). Although the Administrator's opinion letters since 1969 consistently have taken the position that transportation costs primarily benefit the employer, that position alone is not sufficient; the Farmworkers' position that the transportation costs at issue here should be borne by the employer requires more support than the opinion letters provide.