Opinion ID: 2639426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eligibility for Employer Contributions to Health Care Coverage

Text: Although we remand to the superior court for decertification of the class, we must address Mader's and Knudsen's claims that they are eligible for employer contributions to their health care coverage during the summer quarter of 1999 under either WAC 182-12-115(4) or (5). In doing so we review the HCA's determination that petitioners are ineligible for coverage under the criteria established by the PEBB for employer contributions during the summer quarter. [7] The Washington Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA) governs review of a decision by the Health Care Authority. RCW 34.05.510. Relief from an administrative decision will be granted when the law is erroneously interpreted or applied by the agency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). In conducting our review of an administrative decision we sit in the same position as the superior court, applying the WAPA standards directly to the record before the agency. Tapper v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 122 Wash.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494 (1993). While an agency's findings of fact are granted deference, applying the law to the facts is a question of law which we review de novo. Id. at 403, 858 P.2d 494. The Washington state health care reform act of 1988 established the Washington state health care authority and indicated that its purpose is to develop health care benefit programs, funded to the fullest extent possible by the employer, that provide comprehensive health care for eligible state employees. RCW 41.05.006(2). The HCA must balance the State's interest in provid[ing] the most comprehensive health care possible with the interest in minimizing the financial burden health care imposes on the state. Id. [A]ll full-time and career seasonal employees of the state are covered by the HCA's benefit programs. RCW 41.05.011(6); see also RCW 41.05.006(2). [A]ll part-time and temporary employees are covered under the terms and conditions established by the HCA pursuant to chapter 41.05 RCW. Id. The PEBB was established within the HCA to determine the eligibility criteria for state employees to receive health care coverage through the State. RCW 41.05.055, .065; WAC 182-08-020(2). State employees who satisfy the PEBB's criteria are eligible to receive employer contributions to their health care insurance. WAC 182-08-120, -190. In order to determine eligibility for health care coverage, the PEBB established seven categories of criteria for state employees in WAC 182-12-115. Petitioners argue that they should be classified as career seasonal/instructional employees under WAC 182-12-115(4) and assert that they are, therefore, eligible for employer contributions to their health care coverage during the summer quarter. Mader and Knudsen alternatively claim that if they are ineligible under WAC 182-12-115(4) then they are eligible for employer contributions during the summer as part-time faculty under WAC 182-12-115(5). In relevant part, WAC 182-12-115 states: The following employees of state government, higher education, K-12 school districts, educational service districts, political subdivisions and employee organizations representing state civil service workers are eligible to apply for coverage by PEBB plans.... .... (4) Career seasonal/instructional employees[.] Employees who work half-time or more on an instructional year (school year) or equivalent nine-month seasonal basis.... These employees are eligible to receive the employer contribution for insurance during the off-season following each period of seasonal employment. (5) Part-time faculty. Faculty who are employed on a quarter/semester to quarter/semester basis become eligible to apply for coverage beginning with the second consecutive quarter/semester of half-time or more employment at one or more state institutions of higher education.... Employers of part-time faculty must: (a) Consider spring and fall as consecutive quarters/semesters when determining eligibility; and (b) Determine halftime or more employment based on each institution's definition of full-time; and .... (e) Once enrolled, if a part-time faculty member does not work at least a total of half-time in one or more state institutions of higher education, eligibility for the employer contribution ceases. The HCA based its conclusion that Mader and Knudsen were ineligible for employer contributions on its interpretation of the above-quoted regulation. First, it determined that because there are different criteria for career seasonal/instructional employees and part-time faculty logic requires that [Mader and Knudsen] be classified as one or the other. AR at 392. Second, the HCA concluded that Mader and Knudsen are not career seasonal/instructional employees because WAC 182-12-115(4) should be construed to apply only to K-12 school employees and not to part-time community college faculty. To apply WAC 182-12-115(4) to part-time instructors such as Mader and Knudsen, the HCA reasoned, would render subsection (5) meaningless and out of harmony with the remainder of the regulation. We interpret regulations under the rules of statutory construction. City of Kent v. Beigh, 145 Wash.2d 33, 45, 32 P.3d 258 (2001). We construe the act as a whole giving effect to all of the language used. Rules and regulations are to be given a rational, sensible interpretation. Dep't of Licensing v. Cannon, 147 Wash.2d 41, 57, 50 P.3d 627 (2002) (citing State v. Thomas, 121 Wash.2d 504, 512, 851 P.2d 673 (1993)). WAC 182-12-115(4) does not, as the HCA determined, apply only to K-12 school employees to the exclusion of part-time community college faculty. Reading WAC 182-12-115 in its entirety supports our conclusion. The initial provision in the regulation states, The following employees of state government, higher education, K-12 school districts,... are eligible to apply for coverage by PEBB plans. WAC 182-12-115. In our view, this language indicates that employees of higher education are not excluded from any particular provision in WAC 182-12-115, provided they satisfy the criteria set forth in the provision. WAC 182-12-115(4), therefore, includes those part-time community college instructors who work half-time or more on an instructional year (school year) or equivalent nine-month seasonal basis. WAC 182-12-115(4). Our interpretation of WAC 182-12-115(4) does not render WAC 182-12-115(5), which specifically addresses part-time faculty, meaningless or out of harmony with the entire regulation. It is evident that not all part-time instructors will satisfy WAC 182-12-115(4). WAC 182-12-115(5), therefore, provides coverage for those members of a faculty who satisfy its criteria. WAC 182-12-115(5) fills a gap for employees who may have variable work patterns. For instance, a beginning part-time instructor may not satisfy the elements of WAC 182-12-115(4) after teaching only two quarters, but he or she may qualify for benefits under WAC 182-12-115(5). Another part-time instructor may regularly teach less than half-time, but on occasion teach additional courses such that he or she works half-time or more in a quarter. If that instructor does so for two consecutive quarters, he or she may be eligible under WAC 182-12-115(5); if the instructor reverts to a schedule of less than half-time, he or she is likely to be ineligible for coverage. WAC 182-12-115(5), in part, establishes a line at which part-time faculty may become eligible for employer contributions, that is, after two consecutive quarters or semesters teaching half-time or more. Including qualifying part-time faculty in WAC 182-12-115(4) does not, therefore, render WAC 182-12-115(5) meaningless or out of harmony with the entire regulation. If a regulation is unambiguous, intent can be determined from the language alone, and we will not look beyond the plain meaning of the words of the regulation. Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'n, 148 Wash.2d 1, 12, 57 P.3d 1156 (2002); Kilian v. Atkinson, 147 Wash.2d 16, 20-21, 50 P.3d 638 (2002); Flanigan v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 123 Wash.2d 418, 426, 869 P.2d 14 (1994); Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wash.2d 621, 629, 869 P.2d 1034 (1994); In re Matter of Juveniles A, B, C, D, E, 121 Wash.2d 80, 87, 847 P.2d 455 (1993). However, the plain meaning of a regulation may also be `discerned from all that the Legislature has said in the statute and related statutes which disclose legislative intent about the provision in question.' Thurston County, 148 Wash.2d at 12, 57 P.3d 1156 (quoting Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wash.2d 1, 11, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). We recently adopted the second approach to the plain meaning rule because it is `more likely to carry out legislative intent.' Id. (quoting Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash.2d at 12, 43 P.3d 4). Either approach to the plain meaning rule supports the conclusion that the HCA erred in determining that WAC 182-12-115(4) does not apply to part-time community college instructors even if they satisfy the criteria set forth in the regulation. The plain meaning of the language in WAC 182-12-115(4) is that a state employee is eligible for employer contributions to his or her health care benefits when he or she work[s] half-time or more on an instructional year ... or equivalent nine-month seasonal basis. WAC 182-12-115(4). Any state employee who satisfies this provision is, therefore, eligible for employer contributions to their health care benefits during the off-season, which is that time not within the instructional year or equivalent nine-month season. Whether a state employee works half-time or more is based on calculating the number of hours a part-time academic employee works as a percentage of a full-time employee's work load. RCW 28B.50.4891. The superior court and Court of Appeals found that Mader and Knudsen were not academic employees during the summer of 1999 because they neither signed teaching contracts nor worked during that time. As a result, both courts concluded that the provisions of WAC 182-12-115(4) were inapplicable. Under that analysis a calculation under RCW 28B.50.4891 could not be reached. However, this approach ignores the fact that in order to determine whether a state employee is a career seasonal/instructional employee, WAC 182-12-115(4) requires examination of the employee's work status during the instructional year or equivalent nine-month season. WAC 182-12-115(4). The focus in determining an employee's eligibility status should not be on the off-season. Under WAC 182-12-115(4), the off-season is not related to an employee's eligibility. It is included in the provision solely in relation to the fact that eligible career seasonal/instructional employees will receive employer contributions during the months they are not working. The lower courts, therefore, improperly relied on the fact that Mader and Knudsen did not sign contracts for the summer quarter of 1999 in concluding the petitioners were ineligible for employer contributions. In reaching our conclusion that petitioners are not necessarily excluded from eligibility for employer contributions under WAC 182-12-115(4) due to their status as part-time faculty who sign contracts each quarter, we have given full consideration to the legislature's recent statement of intent that public employers are prohibited from misclassifying employees based on labels alone in order to avoid providing or continuing to provide employment-based benefits to which employees are entitled under state law. RCW 49.44.160. Rather than arbitrary labels, [ o ] bjective standards, such as control over the work and the length of the employment relationship, should determine whether a person is an employee who is entitled to employee benefits.  RCW 49.44.160 (emphasis added). Misclassify is defined as to incorrectly classify or label a long-term public employee as `temporary,' `leased,' `contract,' `seasonal,' `intermittent,' or `part-time,' or to use a similar label that does not objectively describe the employee's actual work circumstances.  RCW 49.44.170(2)(d) (emphasis added). The legislature's expression of its intent in enacting RCW 49.44.160 and.170 is persuasive. In effect, the legislature indicated that the HCA should not exclude employees from eligibility for comprehensive health care coverage simply because they are labeled part-time. [8] The HCA did not examine Mader's or Knudsen's actual work circumstances to determine whether either satisfied the eligibility requirements of WAC 182-12-115(4). If it had it would have noted that Mader worked for 21 years on a half-time or more basis fall through spring quarters. Twenty-one years is not a temporary position. The HCA did find that Mader's employment pattern of working half-time or more fall through spring quarters continued in the 1998-99 academic year. The record is similar for Knudsen. For more than 10 years she worked more than half-time, fall through spring, with the exception of fall 1994. The HCA found that she worked half-time or more for the 1998-99 academic year as well. In addition, the record shows that prior to the end of the spring quarters in 1998 and 1999, Knudsen received letters of reasonable assurance from CCS which offered her a continuing position teaching more than half-time in the upcoming fall quarter. Reasonable assurance is a bona fide offer from an educational institution to assign an individual future work at that institution under the same terms and conditions as the individual's previous employment. It is less than a contract or written agreement, but more than a mere possibility of future employment. WAC 192-210-015(1). Knudsen signed both offers for future employment. It appears that both the school district and Knudsen anticipated a continuing employment pattern of part-time instruction each instructional year, fall through spring.