Court Opinion

ID: 9954481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 14:16:24.910919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:57.423012
License: Public Domain

2024 WI 15

                   SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:                2022AP13

COMPLETE TITLE:          Amazon Logistics, Inc.,
                                   Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner,
                              v.
                         Labor and Industry Review Commission,
                                   Defendant-Appellant,
                         Department of Workforce Development UI
                         Div. Bureau of Legal Affairs,
                                   Defendant-Co-Appellant.

                              REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
                              Reported at 407 Wis. 2d 807, 992 N.W.2d 168
                                           (2023 – published)

OPINION FILED:           March 26, 2024
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:           December 19, 2023

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:                Circuit
   COUNTY:               Waukesha
   JUDGE:                Michael O. Bohren

JUSTICES:
PER CURIAM.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
BRIAN HAGEDORN, J.

ATTORNEYS:

       For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs
filed       by    Erik   K.   Eisenmann,     Emily   Logan   Stedman,   and   Husch
Blackwell LLP, Milwaukee; Michael E. Kenneally (pro hac vice),
Stephanie Schuster (pro hac vice), Brendan J. Anderson (pro hac
vice),       and     Morgan,     Lewis   &    Bockius   LLP,    Washington,    DC;
Christopher Ramsey (pro hac vice), and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Pittsburgh, PA. There was an oral argument by Michael E.
Kenneally
    For the defendant-appellant, there was a brief filed by
Jennifer   P.   Carter,   and   Wisconsin   Labor   and    Industry   Review
Commission, Madison. There was an oral argument by Jennifer P.
Carter.

    For the defendant-co-appellant, there was a brief filed by
Christin   L.   Galinat,    Ryan   X.   Farrell,     and    Department    of
Workforce Development, Madison. There was an oral argument by
Ryan X. Farrell.

    An amicus curiae brief was filed by Nathan J. Kane, Scott
E. Rosenow, and WMC Litigation Center, Madison, on behalf of
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Inc.

    An amicus curiae brief was filed by Brenda Lewison, and
Legal Action of Wisconsin Inc., Milwaukee, on behalf of Legal
Action of Wisconsin, Inc.

                                    2
                                                                        2024 WI 15

                                                                NOTICE
                                                  This opinion is subject to further
                                                  editing and modification.   The final
                                                  version will appear in the bound
                                                  volume of the official reports.
No.    2022AP13
(L.C. No.     2020CV579)

STATE OF WISCONSIN                            :            IN SUPREME COURT

Amazon Logistics, Inc.,

              Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner,

       v.                                                            FILED
Labor and Industry Review Commission,
                                                                MAR 26, 2024
              Defendant-Appellant,
                                                                 Samuel A. Christensen
                                                                Clerk of Supreme Court
Department of Workforce Development UI

Div. Bureau of Legal Affairs,

              Defendant-Co-Appellant.

       REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.                 Dismissed as

improvidently granted.

       ¶1     PER CURIAM.     Amazon Logistics petitioned for review

of the decision of the court of appeals, Amazon Logistics, Inc.

v.    LIRC,    2023   WI   App 26,   407   Wis. 2d 807,        992    N.W.2d 168,

affirming LIRC's decision that Amazon Logistics' Flex delivery

drivers do not qualify as independent contractors under Wis.

Stat. § 108.02(12).         After reviewing the record and briefs from
all of the parties, and after hearing oral arguments on December
                                                    No.   2022AP13

19, 2023, we conclude that this matter should be dismissed as

improvidently granted.

    By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of

appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted.

    ¶2   BRIAN HAGEDORN, J., did not participate.

                                2
                                                            No.   2022AP13.awb

       ¶3     ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.       (concurring).    As I have done

in the past, I write separately because I believe that this

court should explain to the litigants and the public the reason

for its dismissal.     It is the least we can do when the litigants

have expended substantial effort and resources arguing the case

before us.

       ¶4     We granted review in order to address what we then

thought was an issue that would result in the development of the

law.       And now, without explanation, the court disposes of the

case in a two-sentence per curiam decision, dismissing the case

as improvidently granted.     Such a dearth of explanation has been

the court's pattern for the past seven years.             But this was not

always so.       A wider examination of such dismissals reveals a

largely inconsistent practice with regard to whether this court

provides any explanation for its decision when it dismisses a

case as improvidently granted.1

       For examples of dismissals without explanation, see State
       1

v. Jackson, 2023 WI 37, 407 Wis. 2d 73, 989 N.W.2d 555; Slamka
v. Gen. Heating and Air Conditioning Inc., 2022 WI 68, 404
Wis. 2d 586, 980 N.W.2d 957; Cobb v. King, 2022 WI 59, 403
Wis. 2d 198, 976 N.W.2d 410; Fond du Lac County v. S.N.W., 2021
WI 41, 396 Wis. 2d 773, 958 N.W.2d 530; State v. Kloss, 2020 WI
26, 390 Wis. 2d 685, 939 N.W.2d 564; Waukesha County v. J.J.H.,
2020 WI 22, 390 Wis. 2d 531, 939 N.W.2d 49; Halbman v. Barrock,
2017 WI 91, 378 Wis. 2d 17, 902 N.W.2d 248.

                                      1
                                                                    No.    2022AP13.awb

       ¶5     The result of the court's inconsistent practice is a

lack of guidance for potential litigants and the public, as well

as an effective negation of the numerous hours of work and sums

of money spent seeking a decision on the merits.                        Because there

is a strong public policy rationale behind providing reasons for

a   dismissal     as    improvidently          granted,     the    court's     general

practice      should    be   to    provide       an   explanation        for   such   a

dismissal, and as such it should have provided an explanation in

this case.

       ¶6     After reviewing the court of appeals opinion, together

with    the    record    and      the   briefs,       and   after       hearing   oral

arguments, I agree with the per curiam that this review should

be deemed improvidently granted because the issues for which we

took   this    fact-dependent       case       will   not   lead   to    any   further

development of the law.             See Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1r).

Thus, further review by this court and publication of an opinion

would not serve any meaningful purpose.

       ¶7     Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
       ¶8     I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA FRANK

DALLET and JANET C. PROTASIEWICZ join this concurrence.

     In contrast, for examples of explanations provided by the
court for a dismissal as improvidently granted, see Smith v.
Anderson, 2017 WI 43, 374 Wis. 2d 715, 893 N.W.2d 790; Michael
J. Waldvogel Trucking, LLC v. LIRC, 2012 WI 28, 339 Wis. 2d 248,
810   N.W.2d 811;  Nedvidek  v.   Kuipers,  2009   WI  44,   317
Wis. 2d 340, 766 N.W.2d 205; State v. Welda, 2009 WI 35, 317
Wis. 2d 87, 765 N.W.2d 555; State v. Gajewski, 2009 WI 22, 316
Wis. 2d 1, 762 N.W.2d 104; State v. Townsend, 2007 WI 31, 299
Wis. 2d 672, 728 N.W.2d 342.

                                           2
                                                                           No.   22AP13.rgb

    ¶9      REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.                    (concurring).          When this

court   decides        to   dismiss    a    case     as     improvidently         granted,

customarily it does not offer an explanation for the dismissal.

Justice    Ann   Walsh      Bradley's      concurrence          renews    her    arguments

made in her dissent in State v. Jackson, 2023 WI 37, 407 Wis. 2d

72, 989 N.W.2d 555, urging the court to change this practice and

provide the reasons for dismissal.                   She again argues there is a

"strong public policy rationale" to do so.                          Justice Ann Walsh

Bradley's Concurrence, ¶5.             Just as in Jackson, her concurrence

does not grapple with the countervailing reasons to withhold an

explanation      and    exemplifies        why    changing       this    practice       would

result in more confusion for litigants.

    ¶10     In    her       concurrence,           Justice       Ann     Walsh     Bradley

reiterates her claim that this court's practice of dismissing

cases as improvidently granted is inconsistent "with regard to

whether this court provides any explanation for its decision[.]"

Id., ¶4.     This claim was rebutted in Jackson, 407 Wis. 2d 73,

¶¶4-5 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring), and Justice Ann

Walsh Bradley has provided no new information to establish an

inconsistency in this court's practice.1                        As I have previously

documented,      Justice      Ann     Walsh       Bradley    "may       lament    the    no-

explanation       trend,       but         calling        the      court's        practice

'inconsistent' flies in the face of the facts."                         Id., ¶5.

    1  In this concurrence, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley lists a
nearly identical collection of cases as referenced in her
Jackson dissent. State v. Jackson, 2023 WI 37, ¶15 n.2, 407
Wis. 2d 73, 989 N.W.2d 555 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., dissenting).

                                              1
                                                                      No.   22AP13.rgb

       ¶11    This court's custom of issuing per curiam decisions

dismissing cases as improvidently granted is standard practice.

"When courts of last resort dismiss a petition, they customarily

do not explain why, although courts have at times exercised

their discretion to make exceptions to this practice on a case

by case basis."           Id., ¶6 (citing 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review

§ 347 (updated Feb.              2023)).     The United States Supreme Court

will       dismiss    a     case     as     improvidently     granted        without

explanation, typically in a one-sentence order.2                       Justice Ann

Walsh Bradley "does not suggest this case warrants an exception

to our [customary] practice; [she] argues explanations should

accompany all dismissals."            Id.       She therefore "bears the burden

of examining why the practice exists and then explaining why it

should be rejected[.]"             Id., ¶7 (quoting G.K.          Chesterton, The

Thing: Why I         am     Catholic 27 (Dodd,         Mead and       Co.    1930)).

Just as in Jackson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley fails to do so.

       ¶12    Justice      Ann    Walsh     Bradley   suggests    a    per    curiam

opinion dismissing a case without an accompanying explanation is
a "negation of the numerous hours of work and sums of money

spent seeking a decision on the merits."                     Justice Ann Walsh

Bradley's Concurrence, ¶5.                The conclusory explanation Justice

       E.g., Arizona v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 596 U.S.
       2

763 (2022) (per curiam); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White
Sales, Inc., 592 U.S. 168 (2021) (per curiam); Dalmazzi v.
United States, 585 U.S. 527 (2018) (per curiam); Duncan v.
Owens, 577 U.S. 189 (2016) (per curiam); Unite Here Local 355 v.
Mulhall, 571 U.S. 83 (2013) (per curiam); Vasquez v. United
States, 566 U.S. 376 (2012) (per curiam); Sullivan v. Florida,
560 U.S. 181 (2010) (per curiam); Bell v. Kelly, 555 U.S. 55
(2008) (per curiam); Maryland v. Blake, 546 U.S. 72 (2005) (per
curiam).

                                            2
                                                                           No.    22AP13.rgb

Ann Walsh Bradley offers does not, however, restore the hours

worked or money spent on this case by the parties.                             Providing an

illusory explanation might make some justices feel better about

dismissing         cases     as       improvidently           granted,    but     such    an

explanation does not help litigants or vindicate their efforts.

A shallow explanation of the court's reason for dismissing a

case as improvidently granted amounts to nothing more than a

hollow victory for one party and provides nothing for future

litigants.

       ¶13     Justice Ann Walsh Bradley asserts "this fact-dependent

case    will    not   lead       to   any   further      development       of    the   law."

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's Concurrence, ¶6.                        But her attempt to

provide      clarity       to     the    parties        will     only    sow     additional

confusion.         "Without some explanation as to why the court's

review of the case would not develop any law, the conclusory

order    recommended        by    [Justice        Ann    Walsh    Bradley]       would   not

promote transparency."                 Jackson, 407 Wis. 2d 73, ¶11 (Rebecca

Grassl Bradley, J., concurring).                   Parties may be left scratching
their heads, believing their case would lead to law development.

Justice      Ann    Walsh       Bradley     "does       not    recognize       that    merely

declaring a petition lacks law-developing potential is itself a

holding with law-developing potential.                        Even if not binding, it

hints this court would not distinguish or overrule an existing

precedent."        Id., ¶10 (citations omitted).                  Instead of injecting

needless confusion into the process, this court should stay the

traditional course.

                                              3
                                                                    No.   22AP13.rgb

    ¶14    There    are     several    reasons     courts    of     last     resort

typically do not supply a reason for dismissing a case.                    For one

thing,   this    tradition    preserves        limited    judicial    resources.

"For example, if this court determines the lower court reached

the correct outcome, further review can be a waste of time."

Id., ¶8 (citation omitted).            Additionally, providing litigants

an explanation for dismissal "presupposes a majority of this

court in a particular case would agree on why a petition should

be dismissed.      Often, no such majority exists."               Id., ¶9.      If a

justice disagrees with the reasoning for dismissal, the justice

may write separately, possibly leading other justices to write

separately in response.        On the other hand, "[a] broadly-worded

order    without   a   specific       reason    for     dismissal    facilitates

joinder," avoiding any waste of judicial resources.                       Id.    The

traditional route also avoids "undermining the very decision not

to decide" a case:        "If this court declines to decide an issue,

explaining the avoidance could inadvertently create persuasive

authority on the issue . . . ."             Id., ¶8.
    ¶15    When this court issues a per curiam opinion dismissing

a case as improvidently granted, the opinion should be short and

formulaic without unnecessary explanations that could mislead

litigants.      This directive mirrors the practice of the United

States   Supreme    Court    and   maintains      the    status     quo    of   this

court's recent practice.           Justice Ann Walsh Bradley offers no

convincing reason to depart from this court's custom.

    ¶16    I am authorized to state that Chief Justice ANNETTE
KINGSLAND ZIEGLER joins this concurrence.

                                        4
    No.   22AP13.rgb

1