Opinion ID: 2629967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Fairness of the administrative process

Text: City Plan alleges that the administrative process was unfair because the Labor Commissioner lacked the requisite authority to hold the hearing since he served as the prosecutor and the hearing officer in this matter in violation of City Plan's due process rights. City Plan further contends that the Labor Commissioner should have disqualified himself because his alleged multiple roles created an appearance of impropriety mandating disqualification under the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) Canon 3E(1)(a). Notably, however, City Plan failed to provide any support for the proposition that the Canons guiding judicial conduct apply to the actions of an administrative adjudicator like the Labor Commissioner. In the absence of relevant authority, we will not consider City Plan's NCJC disqualification arguments. [14] Therefore, we will only address City Plan's due process claims. NRS 233B.122(1), which is part of Nevada's Administrative Procedure Act, states that no individual who acts as an investigator or prosecutor in any contested case may take any part in the adjudication of such case. [15] Here, the record shows that Dizon, a senior investigator, conducted the initial investigation, made recommendations, and prepared the amended complaint. Gail Maxwell, the chief compliance audit investigator for the Office of the Labor Commissioner, then signed the amended complaint. The Labor Commissioner, therefore, did not participate in the filing or prosecution of the complaint; instead, he merely acted as the hearing officer on the matter. Further, the Labor Commissioner's actions comported with Nevada law, which authorized him under NRS 338.015(1) and NRS 338.090, respectively, to hold hearings and assess fines for violations of the prevailing wage provisions. Additionally, NRS 607.205 provides that the Labor Commissioner may conduct hearings to aid the Commissioner's enforcement responsibilities under Nevada's labor laws, including NRS 338.030, which relates to prevailing wages. Moreover, this court has previously noted that [i]t is not uncommon in administrative law to find the combination of investigating, prosecuting and judging functions. [16] Importantly, such a combination in one office, standing alone, does not constitute a denial of due process. [17] In Rudin v. Nevada Real Estate Advisory Commission, this court addressed a similar factual situation and stated that the Nevada Real Estate Advisory Commission did not violate a real estate licensee's due process rights because [t]he investigation was conducted by investigators, the prosecution by counsel for the Commission, and the decision was made by the Commission itself. [18] Likewise, here, because the senior investigator conducted the investigation, the chief compliance audit investigator signed the complaint, and the Labor Commissioner acted as the hearing officer, the administrative process was not manifestly unfair and did not violate City Plan's rights. Significantly, the United States Supreme Court has noted: [T]he contention that the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions necessarily creates an unconstitutional risk of bias in administrative adjudication has a much more difficult burden of persuasion to carry. It must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators; and it must convince that, under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, conferring investigative and adjudicative powers on the same individuals poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented. [19] City Plan has failed to overcome this heavy burden. As noted, the record demonstrates that the Labor Commissioner did not fill the roles of prosecutor and adjudicator. [20] In addition, the record shows that after reviewing the evidence as it related to the eight claimants named in the amended complaint, the Labor Commissioner found that only five of the eight individuals had substantiated their claims. This detracts credence from the argument that the Labor Commissioner was biased and that his decision in the case was a preordained factual and legal conclusion. Thus, we conclude that City Plan's arguments are without merit. [21]