Legal Document

446 U.S. 238 100 Supreme Court Reporter 1610 64 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 182 Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, et al., Appellants,v.JERRICO, INC. Number 79-253. Argued March 19, 1980. Decided April 28, Syllabus Under § 16(e) the Fair Labor Standards Act (Act), sums collected as civil penalties for unlawful employment child labor are returned to Employment Administration (ESA) Department in reimbursement costs determining violations and assessing penalties. An Assistant Regional Administrator determined that provisions had occurred at restaurants managed by appellee assessed a fine against appellee, including an amount willful violation. After filed exceptions Administrator's determination assessment, hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge, who accepted contention occurred, but found were not reduced total assessment accordingly. Appellee than suit Federal District Court, contending violated Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. The granted summary judgment holding provision created impermissible risk bias on part because regional office's greater effort uncovering could lead increased share reimbursements office, thus distort objectivity Held: does violate Amendment creating Act's enforcement administration. Pp. 242-252. (a) Strict due process requirements neutrality officials performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions, cf. Tumey versus Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, 71 L.Ed. 749, Ward Monroeville, 409 57, 93 80, 34 267, applicable determinations assistant administrator, whose functions resemble those prosecutor more closely judge. In adversary system, prosecutors permitted be zealous their law. Although traditions prosecutorial discretion do immunize from scrutiny decisions contrary law, rigid standards cannot same administrative judges. 242-250. (b) It is unnecessary this case determine with precision what limits there may financial personal interest one performs function, here influence alleged impose exceptionally remote. No governmental official stands profit economically vigorous provisions; no realistic possibility administrator's will distorted prospect institutional gain result efforts; ESA's administration has minimized any potential bias. On record, administrator might tempted devote unusually large quantity resources efforts hope he would ultimately obtain higher allocation federal funds his office too remote constraints charged plaintiff-like functions. 250-252. Reversed remanded. Kenneth S. Geller, Washington, D. C., appellants. Thomas W. Power, appellee. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 Act, 29 Code KF62 216(e), question decision whether violates 2 * law primarily contained 12 52 Statutes-at-Large 1067, amended, 212. designated ESA agency responsible enforcing these provisions, 36 Fed.Reg. 8755 (1971). turn carries out its responsibilities through offices, each been duty 3 Jerrico, Inc., Delaware corporation manages approximately 40 Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida. series investigations 1969 1975, uncovered over 150 appellee's various establishments. considering factors statute regulations,1 Atlanta $103,000 violations. That figure included supplemental $84,500 conclusion willful. 4 Administrator, pursuant Judge. Witnesses employees representatives Labor. Judge concluding record showed "a course violations" which "[r]espondent's responsibility disputed." At time, persuaded witnesses review evidence Accordingly, $18,500. 5 did seek Instead, it brought challenging penalty constitutional grounds seeking declaratory injunctive relief continued enforcement. unfairness proceedings him. Nonetheless, contended providing must expenses allowing allocate such fines offices. According appearance encouraging make unduly numerous assessments 6 parties engaged discovery respect 16(e), moved judgment. motion. acknowledged Office Judges unaffected court concluded administrator. Citing 749 (1927), Village 267 (1972), Act. 7 We noted probable jurisdiction, 444 949, 419, 62 318 (1979), now reverse. II Atlantic 8 entitles person impartial disinterested tribunal both criminal cases. This requirement adjudicative safeguards two central concerns procedural process, prevention unjustified mistaken deprivations promotion participation dialogue affected individuals decisionmaking process. See Carey Piphus, 435 247, 259-262, 266-267, 98 1042, 1043, 1050-1052, 1053, 1054, 55 252, (1978). helps guarantee life, liberty, property taken basis erroneous conception facts Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 344, 96 893, 907, 18 (1976). preserves reality fairness, "generating feeling, so important popular government, justice done," Joint Anti-Fascist Committee McGrath, 341 123, 172, 624, 649, 95 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), ensuring deprived interests absence proceeding present assurance arbiter predisposed find 9 jealously guarded supra, reversed convictions rendered mayor town when mayor's salary paid fees levied him acting capacity. stated permit "procedure offer possible temptation average man judge forget burden proof required convict defendant, hold balance nice, clear true between state accused." U.S., 532, S.Ct., 444. applied invalidate procedure produced accounted substantial portion municipal revenues, even though augmented sums. forbidden "possible temptation," we concluded, also "when executive village finances partisan maintain high level contribution court." 60, 83. have employed principle variety settings, demonstrating powerful independent fair procedure.2 Indeed, "justice satisfy justice," Offutt States, 348 11, 14, 75 13, 99 11 (1954), "stringent rule sometimes bar trial judges actual very best weigh scales equally parties," re Murchison, 349 133, 136, 623, 625, 942 (1955). Taylor Hayes, 418 488, 94 2697, 41 897 (1974). 10 contends principles compel Clause. conclude, however, strict biasing discerns is, believe, insubstantial To explain our conclusion, relevant sections As above, major portions appear 212, outlaws interstate commerce "oppressive labor," term defined 203(l ) implementing regulations. These demonstrate firm policy "protect[ing] safety, health, well-being, opportunities schooling youthful workers." Regulations 570.101 (1979). H.R.Rep. 1452, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., (1937); S.Rep. 884, 2, (1937). Before 1974, enforced actions relief, see §§ 212(b), 217, sanctions, 216(a), 215(a)(4). Having inadequate insufficiently flexible remedy 93-913, Page 15 (1974), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 2811, Congress 1974 authorized assess exceed $1,000 violation 216(e). penalties, Secretary's existence final if enters exception within days receiving notice. event entered, made conducted accordance Procedure 554. "may affirm, whole part, occurrence . shall order payment originally lesser respondent pay penalty, appropriate." 580.32(a) He directed consider considered administrator3 making original assessment. Ibid. natural construction regulation, conduct de novo all factual legal issues.4 13 constitutionality issue section states "shall toward collecting 9a title." Section 9a, added 1934, provides 14 "received cost work deposited credit appropriation bureau, service, division, other supervised work, used, notwithstanding ordinary and/or secure special services persons neither officers nor States."5 developed permits detailed description years 1976, 1977, 1978. plain official's levels three amounted substantially less 1% budget.6 And years, spend full appropriated it, spent Treasury. amounts Treasury fashion exceeded under years.7 challenged not, therefore, resulted increase available Congress. 16 Civil allocated national ESA, subject approval retained office; they Solicitor offices proportion expended provisions;8 1978, never allotted particular 17 circumstances set forth Tumey, Ward. that, 1977 practice demonstrated, return efforts. Increased larger reimbursements. court, therefore inclined maximize expenditures number assessed. unconstitutional decisions. disagree. simply equated kind decisionmakers applicable. hears rules disputed questions. function akin plaintiff. If employer excepts penalty—as statutory right do—he entitled judge.9 acts complaining party bears contested issues. 580.21(a) regulations notice employer's "shall, respectively given effect complaint answer thereto purposes proceeding." 580.3(b) judge, adjudicating found, inapplicable Judges.10 19 Ward, designed Our system traditionally accorded wide Linda R. Richard D., 410 614, 1146, 35 793 (1973), similar considerations well, Moog Industries, Incorporated FTC, 355 411, 414, 78 377, 380, 370 (1958); Vaca Sipes, 386 171, 182, 87 903, 912, 842, (1967). Prosecutors need entirely "neutral detached," 62, 84. necessarily accurate finding application preserving open decision, degree implicated prosecutor, offered incentive securing distinction nonjudicial explicitly 535, 445, where legislature "may, often ought to, stimulate prosecutions crime offering initiate carry rewards people." Hortonville School Dist. Ed. Assn., 426 482, 495, 2308, 2315, 49 (1976) 20 suggest, appellants contend, imposes partisanship prosecutors. public officials; serve interest. Berger 295 78, 88, 629, 633, 79 1314 (1935). appropriate cases motivated improper otherwise Dunlop Bachowski, 421 560, 567, n. 7, 568-574, 1851, 1858, 1858-1861, 44 377 (1975); Rochester Telephone Corporation 307 125, 59 754, 83 1147 (1939).11 Moreover, enforce—or enforce—may itself significant burdens defendant beneficiary, vindicated adjudication. Cf. K. Davis Treatise 215-256 (2d ed. 1979). A scheme injecting interest, otherwise, into bring irrelevant some contexts raise serious Bordenkircher 434 357, 365, 663, 669, 54 604 (1978); 28 528 (1976 ed., Supp. III) (disqualifying participating litigation interest). But judges, impartiality serves ultimate meaningful regime. B 21 case, say function,12 fixed 5332 III). pressures relied supra; Gibson Berryhill, 411 564, 579, 1689, 1698, 488 (1973); Connally 429 245, 250, 97 546, 548, 50 (1977) (per curiam ), absent here. 22 Nor noted, represent budget ESA.13 Unlike agent sense financially dependent maintenance Furthermore, since decides how administrators all. Dugan 277 61, 48 439, 72 784 (1928). 23 only year elected incurred investigating prosecuting violations, collected. Thus, act assumption year, unjustifiable benefit produce expenses. 24 Court's evidently premised perception office. effort, suggested, incline high. light discussed functions.14 predicted result, decide offices; end fiscal year; receive authorization superiors expend additional desired level; penalties; reviewing courts accept ratify assessments. "[U]nder appraisal psychological tendencies human weakness," Withrow Larkin, 35, 47, 1456, 1464, 43 712 (1975), exceedingly improbable expectation contingencies simultaneously come fruition. unable presently administered, fairness embodied 25 reversed, remanded further consistent opinion. 26 ordered. Those include "any history prior violations; willfulness failure take reasonable precautions avoid minors illegally employed; age records age; occupations exposure hazards resultant injury minors; duration illegal employment; and, appropriate, hours day during outside school hours." 579.5(c) For example, invalidated justices peace issuance nonissuance search warrants, curiam); prohibited previously contempt, (1974); Mayberry Pennsylvania, 400 455, 91 499, 27 523 (1971); board consisting optometrists private charges licensed competing members, 578-579, 1697-1698, parole officer exist revocation parole, Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 485-486, 92 2593, 2602-2603, 33 484 (1972). 1, supra. infra, accompanying text. "[t]o authorize statistical studies upon thereof, purposes." 582; 322, 73d Sess. (1934). about $151,000 $650,000; $592,000. By comparison, $87,407,000 1976; $98,992,000 1977; $119,632,000 Budget Government, Fiscal Year 1980—Appendix 652; 1979—Appendix 623-624; 1978 Appendix 510. indicates $981,000 Treasury; $870,000 $4,600,000 $559,800 $194,800 Chicago received $44,300, highest allotment Denver lowest, $4,900. claims truly authority violation, reasonableness penalty. discern limitation judge's authority. regulations, expressly empowered precisely 579.5 carefully reviewed 80%. correctly points availability unbiased remove infirmity impaired. litigant, said, "is neutral detached first instance." Id., 61-62, aid presides initial errs suggesting 16(e). When read conjunction 9(a), allows "supervised [the] work" "determining penalties." "supervise" work. forbids supervision. 554(d). maintains separate supervising body, budget. Cf., e. g., Adams Richardson, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 480 Reporter, 2nd 1159 Environmental Defense Fund, Ruckelshaus, 142 74, 439 584 Medical Comm. Human Rights SEC, 139 226, 432 659 (1970), vacated moot, 404 403 (1972); Perez Boston Housing Authority, 379 Mass. 703, North Eastern 1231, 1247, 1252-1253 (1980). Stewart, Reformation American Law, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 1667, 1752-1756 Jaffe, Individual Right Initiate Process, Iowa L.Rev. 485 (1940). particular, different apply contributed persons, rather general zealousness Even considerable course, corresponding lower treasury. objections Tumey.

Classification Label: 3