Country Landscaping & Supply, Inc. vs. United States Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order entered by the Honorable John W. Darrah on 1/31/2013. Mailed notice (tlm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
COUNTRY LANDSCAPING &
SUPPLY, INC. and
RAFAEL DIAZ PRADO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-cv-4309
Judge John W. Darrah
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Country Landscaping & Supply, Inc. (“Country Landscaping”) and
Rafael Diaz Prado filed a Complaint for declaratory judgment, mandamus, and injunctive
relief against the United States Department of Labor (the “DOL”). Plaintiffs seek relief
relating to the DOL’s denial of a labor certification application and refusal to process
visa applications. (Compl. ¶ 2.) The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.
The DOL moves for summary judgment, finding that the agency’s decision regarding the
Country Landscaping’s application was not arbitrary or capricious nor contrary to the
law. Plaintiffs, also moving for summary judgment, argue that the deficiencies in the
application were merely harmless error or that the agency’s decision was a denial of due
process. The motions have been fully brief and are ripe for ruling.
BACKGROUND
Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires a party moving for summary judgment to provide
“a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine
issue.” Rule 56.1(b)(3) then requires the nonmoving party to admit or deny each factual
statement proffered by the moving party and to concisely designate any material facts
that establish a genuine dispute for trial. See Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
403 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2005). A litigant’s failure to dispute the facts set forth in an
opponent’s statement in the manner dictated by Local Rule 56.1 results in those facts’
being deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment. Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d
680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003).
To the extent that a response to a statement of material fact provides only
extraneous or argumentative information, this response will not constitute a proper denial
of the fact, and the fact will be admitted. See Graziana v. Village of Oak Park, 401 F.
Supp. 2d 918, 937 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Similarly, to the extent that a statement of fact
contains a legal conclusion or otherwise unsupported statement, including a fact which
relies upon inadmissible hearsay, such a fact is disregarded. Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp.,
113 F.3d 738, 742 (7th Cir. 1997).
The following is taken from the parties’ statements of undisputed material facts
submitted in accordance with Local Rule 56.1. This case involves a challenge to a final
agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”); the parties agreed
discovery was unnecessary, and the DOL has submitted a certified copy of the
administrative record. (Def.’s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 2.) Country Landscaping is an
2
Illinois corporation, operating in the Northern District of Illinois; Prado is an Illinois
resident. (Pl.’s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶¶ 1-2.) Country Landscaping’s principal and only
place of business is located at 13305 131st Street in Lemont, Illinois. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 12.)
Country Landscaping filed a labor certification application with the DOL on behalf of
Prado on May 13, 2008. (Id. ¶ 3.) Country Landscaping posted, at its only place of
business, a job notice for the requisite ten business days, but this notice did not state
Country Landscaping’s name or address. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) The DOL denied the labor
certification on May 19, 2010, noting that the lack of the employer’s name and location
on the notice violated federal regulation. (Id. ¶ 7; Def.’s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 3.)
Plaintiffs appealed this denial to the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals
(“BALCA”) on March 2, 2011, and their appeal was denied on December 23, 2011.
(Pl.’s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶¶ 8-9.) The BALCA found the regulation required Country
Landscaping’s notice of filing to contain the information mandated for newspaper
announcements, including the name of the employer and the location of the job
opportunity. (Def.’s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion to
reconsider the denial of their appeal on January 16, 2012, arguing the omissions of its
name and address in the notice was harmless error; BALCA also denied this motion.
(Pl.’s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶¶ 10-12; Def’s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 5.) Because Country
Landscaping’s notice failed to include its name or address, the application for permanent
labor certification was denied by the DOL. (Pl.’s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 15.)
Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, and venue is proper in the
Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
3
LEGAL STANDARD
Section 706 of the APA governs a court’s review of an administrative agency
decision. Under this law, a court, in reviewing an agency decision, must determine if an
action by the agency was: arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in
accordance with the law, or otherwise unsupported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 706(2)(A); Abraham Lincoln Memorial Hosp. v. Sebelius, 698 F.3d 536, 547 (7th Cir.
2012) (Lincoln). Final decisions of administrative agencies are given deference by
district courts. A court must consider whether an agency’s decision was “based on a
consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of
judgment. Nevertheless, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one, and the district
court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Secretary of Labor of U.S.
v. Farino, 490 F.2d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 1973) (quotations and citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
The Immigration and Nationality Act creates a classification of aliens seeking
admission into the United States based on offers of permanent employment. Before
obtaining the classification of an alien as an employment preference immigrant,
employers must obtain certification from the DOL, indicating that no qualified, able and
willing American workers are available to fill the alien’s position. In order for an
employer to obtain certification for permanent employment of an alien in the United
States, the employer must file an application, as governed by 20 C.F.R. § 656.10. In
conjunction with this application for certification, an employer must post notice of its
filing of the Application for Permanent Employment Certification. 20 C.F.R.
4
§ 656.10(d). The regulation identifies the information required to be included in the
notice, which is the same that is required for advertisements in 20 C.F.R. § 656.17. The
notice shall include the name of the employer and “the geographic area of employment
with enough specificity to apprise applicants of any travel requirements and where
applicants will likely have to reside to perform the job opportunity.” 20 C.F.R. §
656.17(f). The DOL can deny a labor certification application if it fails to comply with
regulations, and an employer can seek review of the denial with the BALCA.
Country Landscaping filed for permanent employment certification on behalf of
Prado, as Country Landscaping sought to hire Prado as a landscaper. The DOL denied
this application for permanent employment certification. As Country Landscaping
concedes, it posted notice, but this notice failed to state the employer’s name or the
location of employment. (Pl.’s 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶¶ 13-14.) Country Landscaping
argued that, despite these omissions in the notice, their failure to comply fully with the
notice regulation should be found to be harmless error. This harmless error argument
was rejected by the BALCA, who denied reconsideration of its decision in January 2012.
Country Landscaping again raises its argument of harmless error in its motion for
summary judgment. The DOL counters in its motion that the harmless error argument
should again be rejected, as the denial of Country Landscaping’s application was
sufficiently supported by the law. Moreover, Country Landscaping failed to present the
issue that standards, like the harmless error standard, under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are applicable to labor certification decisions. Having failed to exhaust this
argument at the administrative level, Country Landscaping may not now raise the issue at
5
the district court level. See Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 523, 527 (7th Cir. 2005).
Regardless, this harmless error argument fails because the APA applies to the review of
an agency decision. Country Landscaping’s motion ignores the APA, which requires that
a reviewing court may set aside an agency decision where the decision is found to be
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; . .
. [or] unsupported by substantial evidence . . . .” Lincoln, 698 F.3d at 547 (citations
omitted). The APA requires only a notice of denial, “accompanied by a brief statement
of the grounds for denial.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(e). Even if the harmless error standard were
to apply, the error was not harmless; rather, Country Landscaping’s omission of pertinent
information violates both the letter and the purpose of the Act – to assist American
workers by providing relevant information about a perspective employer. See In the
Matter of Sagarsoft, Inc., BALCA Case No.: 2010-PER-01228, at *3 (Sept. 13, 2011).
As the administrative record shows, the DOL’s decision to deny Country
Landscaping’s application was not arbitrary or capricious. During an audit of Country
Landscaping’s application, the DOL discovered Country Landscaping failed to comply
with the regulations governing the notice of the landscaping position. The administrative
record demonstrates that Country Landscaping’s failure to include the employer’s name
and location of employment in its notice was identified as the defect in Country
Landscaping’s application. This was not arbitrary or capricious but, rather, necessary for
the DOL to properly enforce its regulations. There was no abuse of discretion on the part
of the DOL, nor was its denial of the application not in accordance with the law; to the
contrary, the DOL’s denial was directly in accordance with regulations. See 20 CFR
6
§ 656.17. However minor an omission Country Landscaping seeks to characterize its
mistake, Country Landscaping provides no basis for why it should be given a special
exemption to the notice requirements. The Permanent Labor Certification regulations
require an “applicant [to] strictly adhere to the rigorous regulatory requirements.” In the
Matter of: Alexandria Granite & Marble, BALCA Case No. 2009-PER-00373, at *3
(May 26, 2010). Additionally, Country Landscaping is not entitled to an exception to the
rule by arguing a denial of procedural due process. Country Landscaping’s application
omitted critical information. It did not simply make a technical or typographical error, as
was present in the HealthAmerica case, cited by Country Landscaping. In the Matter of:
HealthAmerica, BALCA Case No. 2006-PER-00001 (July 18, 2006) (en banc). These
regulations are in place to help the DOL process a high volume of applications
consistently, while also limiting the ability of an applicant to misrepresent a job
opportunity on an application. Id. As such, granting an exception such as the one sought
by Country Landscaping would serve to swallow the rule.
CONCLUSION
The DOL’s denial of Country Landscaping’s application was not arbitrary,
capricious, or otherwise contradictory to applicable regulations. In light of the foregoing
analysis, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, and the DOL’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
Date:
January 31, 2013
______________________________
JOHN W. DARRAH
United States District Court Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?