Legal Document

476 U.S. 253 106 S.Ct. 1834 90 L.Ed.2d 248 William E. BROCK, Secretary of Labor, Petitionerv.PIERCE COUNTY. No. 85-385. Argued April 1, 1986. Decided May 19, Syllabus During the time pertinent to this case, Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) (later repealed) required that qualified entities (such as respondent county), receiving federal grants for programs providing job training employment opportunities economically disadvantaged, unemployed, or underemployed persons, comply with statute regulations Labor (Secretary). Section 106(b) CETA provided shall investigate whenever he has reason believe, through a complaint, an audit, otherwise, grant recipient was misusing funds, further "shall" determine "the truth allegation belief involved, not later than 120 days after complaint." Department audits respect two had received raised questions concerning respondent's costs related ineligible employees, were filed Department's Grant Officer, but his final determinations disallowing such in each instance issued within audit reports filed. On review both determinations, Administrative Law Judge, although reducing amount disallowance rejected contention could order repay sums because determination 120-day period suffered prejudice delay. The Court Appeals reversed, holding § prevented from acting unless made Held: does lose power recover misused funds expiration specified 106(b). Pp. 258-266. (a) mere use word 106(b), standing alone, is enough remove Secretary's act days. Every failure agency observe procedural requirement void subsequent action, especially when important public rights are at stake. When, here, there less drastic remedies available meet statutory deadline, courts should assume Congress intended its act. Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 807, 100 2486, 65 532, distinguished. There no merit statutes setting deadlines action be interpreted permit proceed deadline expired only inaction would private citizen seeking some sort redress, will injure Federal Treasury, read command like limitations jurisdictional bar. 258-262. (b) Nothing legislative history suggests impose limitation on enforcement powers if failed issue complaint Rather, provision clearly spur discovering rectifying abuses recipients, limit scope authority. 262-265. (c) Nor any established bar recovery funds. merely timetable resolution complaints audits. And authority create remedy by treating can vary depending complexity dispute culpability recipient. 265-266. 759 F.2d 1398 (CA9 1985), reversed. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Andrew J. Pincus, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Joseph F. Quinn, Tacoma, Wash., respondent. Justice MARSHALL 1 (CETA), 92 Stat. 1926, 29 U.S.C. 816(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V), provides (Secretary) misuse alleging misuse. question presented case whether loses expired. 2 * Before repeal 1982,1 certain known "prime sponsors," principally state local governments, "provid[ing] persons," 801 V).2 contains detailed requirements operation program training, pay, terms participants program, see §§ 823-827. A prime sponsor must submit plan detailing proposed containing assurances regulations, 813. 3 broad ensure used accordance regulations. may recipient, connection inspect records, enter premises upon which conducted. 835(a)(2). Any interested person, participating employee, file failing applicable standards. 816. 4 816(b), lawsuit, requires violating regulatory standards, "shall matter."3 same section goes require II 5 Respondent county State Washington 1974 1977 pursuant separate grants. September 1978, Office Special Investigations report first grant. That Officer February 13, 1981, approximately $110,000 incurred grounds those employees who eligible participate program. December 11, Inspector General second grant, again raising participants. 22, corrected finally $373,000 arising out 6 sought before Judge (ALJ) Department. ALJ disallowed smaller $108,000 $265,000, respectively, cases. In cases, argued these Officer's been considerably more submission initial report. While conceding did jurisdiction make passed, it lengthy claim finding specific instances prejudice. 7 Ninth Circuit Pierce County United States, Dept. (1985). court previously decided, City Edmonds States By Through 749 1419 (1984), Congress, enacting prevent receipt complaint. present decided "not complaint" also result own rather third-party complaint.4 This decision conflicts decisions Second, Seventh, Eighth Circuits.5 We granted certiorari resolve conflict, 474 944, 308, 88 285 (1985), we now reverse. III 8 As Friendly noted identical issue, proposition misspent learning "is not, say least, commands instant assent." St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, New York Brock, 769 37, 41 (CA2 1985) (footnote omitted), cert. pending, 85-949. therefore examine carefully language indeed desire somewhat incongruous result. A. 9 held plain meaning take sufficient demonstrate meant Edmonds, F.2d, 1421. Noting "[s]tatutory generally construed according words 'absent expressed intention contrary,' " ibid. (quoting Consumer Product Safety Comm'n GTE Sylvania, Inc., 102, 108, 2051, 2056, 64 766 (1980)), contrary intent, jurisdictional. 10 Secretary, however, notes while speaks mandatory language, nowhere specifies consequences relies line precedent Courts effect Government agencies do limits 'both expressly official particular consequence provision.' supra, Fort Worth National Savings & Loan Ins. Corp., 469 47, 58 (CA5 1972)).6 Having days, argues, impute preventing protecting fisc integrity 11 never adopted relies. However, our supply least underpinnings precedents. frequently articulated "great principle policy, all governments alike, forbids interests prejudiced negligence officers agents whose care they confided." Nashville, C. L.R. Co., 118 120, 125, 1006, 1008, 30 L.Ed. 81 (1886). See Guaranty Trust Co. 304 126, 785, 82 1224 (1938); Stanley Schwalby, 147 508, 515, 13 418, 421, 37 259 (1893). most reluctant conclude every voids deadline,7 12 being inconsistent Court's 532 (1980). Mohasco, plaintiff 300-day 706(e) Civil Rights 1964, 42 2000e-5(e), jurisdictionally barred. so holding, gave controlling weight literal provisions, stated "a charge under filed" limits. U.S., 815-817, S.Ct., 2491-2493. clear differences between Mohasco. First, legislatures routinely filing complaints, Congress' certainly unexceptional. Indeed, alleged limitations, contended "filed" defined way render timely. 818, 2493. contrast, time, him entire time. substantial task ability complete subject factors beyond control. reason, therefore, believe follow deadline. involved right plaintiff's plaintiff. stake, delay, theory, taxpaying public. redress. disagree argument reasons. protection matter interest citizen, have evidence wanted harm individual claimant. applies investigations triggered complainant, perhaps participant subcontractor, injured recipient's CETA's requirements. uniformly mechanism sole means redress party violation CETA.8 Thus, even cannot jurisdictional, then complainants enforce their CETA. hold, days.9 B 14 Looking other sources congressional found nothing 1978 amendments CETA, added suggest action. explicit discussion brief colloquy House floor Representative Hawkins, one bill's sponsors, Obey, offered amendment deadline: 15 "Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, seen amendment. accept 16 "If gentleman yield, I understand . affect matter? 17 OBEY. correct. 18 With understanding amendment." 124 Cong.Rec. 25230-25231 (1978). 19 Such statements legislators given effect, consistent history, provide intent. Grove College Bell, 465 555, 567, 104 1211, 1218, 79 516 (1984). fully supports Hawkins' interpretation 20 One principal concerns underlying growing incidence fraud governments. H.R.Rep. 95-1124, pp. 3, 5, (1978) (noting "widespread concern abuse insufficient staff devoted monitoring supervising program"); S.Rep. 95-891, 42-44 (1978), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News p. 4480. primary purpose strengthen hand dealing illegal practices. Thus contained numerous antifraud measures, including criminal sanctions, 665(a) bonding 836, authorization terminate suspend funding corrective bill, created Pub.L. 95-452, 1101 (now codified amended U.S.C.App. 1-12. Conference Report expected "to provide, new General, unit responsibility program." H.R.Conf.Rep. 95-1765, 123 21 particularly concerned about contractors, subgrantees, voice grievances receive prompt resolution. 43 (citing Senate hearings amendments). "[i]n cases either ignored, interminable delay resolution." S. Rep. 42, 4522. response problem, required, 106(a), establish grievance procedure 60 grievance. After exhausting sponsor's machinery, could, Secretary. makes assure opportunity grievances. 16, 4495, example, states: "A wishes appeal formal informal due process hearing merits days." Conspicuously absent reference possibility might convey sponsor. 22 indication sponsors too harshly; contrary, Reports consistently aggressive abuses. maximum protect 21, 4501. It very odd implemented intent cutting off correct just them. C 23 additional arguments, find unpersuasive, support Circuit's decision. contends so. n. supra. arguably go applying well specify event possible statute, 24 urges, jurisdiction, treat simply remedy. balancing proposes Congress. IV 25 hold divest fails Accordingly, judgment 26 Reversed. Effective October 1982, replaced Job Partnership Act, 97-300, 96 1324 1501 et seq. (1982 II)). Hereafter citations Title Code Supplement V 1976 edition, otherwise specified. promulgated implementing CFR 676.86, 676.88 (1982). Those conduct investigation. 676.86(c), (d), (e). belief, 676.88(a). informally matters determination, 676.88(d), fails, issues 676.88(e). "final determination" though administrative law judge 676.86(a). contest 106(b)'s requirement. took place Because states "120 complaint," audit. reading, view, comports parties argument, part issuing internal 676.88(e) constitute self-imposed challenge aspect without deciding apply investigations. 85-949; Milwaukee Donovan, 771 983 (CA7 85-1109; Louis 787 342 (CA8 1986); Lehigh Valley Manpower Program 718 99 (CA3 1983) (failure bars funds). Cable Television Assn., Inc. Copyright Royalty Tribunal, 233 U.S.App.D.C. 44, 57, 23, 724 176, 189, (1983) (requirement 804(e) tribunal year void); Marshall N.L. Industries, 618 1220, 1224-1225 1980) 660(c)(3) employee's action); Local Union 1374, Int'l Assn. Machinists Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 558 1354 1977) 482(b) bring suit suit). Procedure (APA), 701-706, entitles person "adversely affected aggrieved action" judicial review, 702, relevant precludes "agency committed discretion law," 701(a)(2). Clearly commit discretion. Moreover, appears Cf. Workers Organizing Comm. York, 617 926, 934-936 (APA circumvent mechanism). appear complainant adversely district court. "compel unlawfully withheld unreasonably delayed," 706(1). If arguing recipients delays audits, zone protected APA extent complainant. Association Data Processing Service Organizations, Camp, 397 150, 153, 827, 829, 184 (1970). hand, complainants, need all—much seeks case—for Uniformed Firefighters 94, IAFF, AFL-CIO 676 1982); Kolman Area Technical College, 548 F.Supp. 684 (ED Wis.1982). explicitly statute. normal indicia permits

Classification Label: 8