Tait v. DOLI , 2013 MT 64N ( 2013 )

March 12 2013
DA 12-0384
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2013 MT 64N
IN THE MATTER OF THE WAGE CLAIM OF
CHARLOTTE C. EASON, Claimant.
M. DAVIDENE TAIT d/b/a TRIPLE CROWN
MOTOR INN,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA, COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY,
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS DIVISION,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. DDV-09-921
Honorable Dirk M. Sandefur, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Mary Davidene Tait (Self-Represented), Great Falls, Montana
For Appellee Eason:
Joseph Hardgrave, D. Michael Eakin, Montana Legal Services
Association, Billings, Montana
For Appellee Department of Labor and Industry:
Joseph Nevin, Special Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 16, 2013
Decided: March 12, 2013
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
2
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Mary Davidene Tait (Tait) appeals from the order entered in this matter by the
Eighth Judicial District Court on April 27, 2012. The District Court affirmed the Hearing
Officer’s dismissal of Tait’s administrative appeal of a wage claim determination entered
against her by the Wage and Hour Unit of the Department of Labor. The wage claim
determination was entered in favor of Appellee Charlotte C. Eason (Eason). Eason and
the Department of Labor (Department) have filed briefs in opposition to Tait’s appeal.
¶3 Eason filed a claim for wages with the Department in December 2008, naming
Tait as her employer. Eason was employed as a housekeeper and worked at the Triple
Crown Motor Inn in Great Falls. The Department’s Wage and Hour Unit sent a letter to
Tait requesting a response to the claim. Tait requested additional time to respond, which
was granted. On January 2, 2009, the Wage and Hour Unit, noting that Tait had failed to
respond by the extended deadline, issued a Determination finding that Tait owed Eason
$869.85 in wages and a penalty in the amount of $956.84. The Determination notified
the parties of their appeal rights.
¶4 On January 26, 2009, a default order was issued stating that neither party had
appealed from the Determination. Tait contested the default order, and it was set aside by
3
the Department. Additional information was received from both parties. The Wage and
Hour Unit then issued a Redetermination on March 19, 2009, finding that Tait owed
Eason the adjusted amounts of $741.13 in wages and $430.24 in penalties. Tait appealed
the Redetermination and the case was transferred from the Wage and Hour Unit to the
Department’s Hearings Bureau. The appointed Hearing Officer conducted a scheduling
conference with the parties, setting dates for submission of contentions, lists of witnesses
and exhibits, and stipulated facts; for a prehearing conference; and for an in-person
hearing. The scheduling order stated that “[a] party’s failure to appear for any
conference, and/or failure to obey orders issued by the Hearing Officer, may result in . . .
dismissal of the appeal.”
¶5 Tait did not submit contentions or exhibit and witness lists. She was not available
by telephone at the time scheduled for the pre-trial conference. A message was left with
the hotel staff at Tait’s listed place of employment for Tait to contact the Hearings
Bureau so that the conference could be reconvened. Tait did not contact the Hearings
Bureau that day. She did not further advise the Hearings Bureau of her intentions. On
August 7, 2009, the Hearing Officer issued an order dismissing Tait’s appeal and
declaring that the Redetermination was final.
¶6 Tait filed a petition for judicial review before the District Court. After briefing by
the parties, the District Court entered an order affirming the Hearing Officer’s dismissal
of Tait’s administrative appeal. The District Court concluded that Tait had “made no
showing by affidavit, citation to legal authority, or other legal or credible means that the
agency findings of fact and conclusions of law underlying the 03-19-09 wage claim
4
Redetermination or the subsequent MDOL Dismissal Order are erroneous as a matter of
fact or law under the applicable standard of review for district court review of final
agency decisions under § 2-4-702, MCA.” The District Court further held that Tait had
failed to make any credible showing “that the interests of justice warrant excuse of her
blatant failure to timely participate in and exhaust her administrative remedy for appeal
of the 3-19-09 MDOL Redetermination.” Tait made an unsubstantiated claim that she
was available for the pre-hearing conference but an error by the hotel’s front desk kept
her from participating. The District Court reasoned that, even if this explanation was
taken as true, it did not explain Tait’s further failure to participate. As to Tait’s argument
that Eason’s actual employer was a non-party corporate entity, the District Court
reasoned that Tait had failed to make a “factual showing . . . of new evidence discovered
upon reasonable diligence to warrant reversal and remand or a supplementary evidentiary
proceeding on judicial review.”
¶7 On appeal from the District Court’s order, Tait asserts that she is only an
employee of Triple Crown Inn and has no ownership interest. She insinuates that Triple
Crown Inn is the party responsible for the wage claim, but further asserts that the
ownership of Triple Crown Inn has been long disputed and that the real property has been
foreclosed upon in other legal proceedings. She argues the case has been mooted because
any corporate owner has ceased to exist. Tait states that she forwarded Eason’s wage
claim to a principal or former principal of Triple Crown Inn and requested documentation
to defend the claim, but none was provided to her, arguing “it was and is virtually
5
impossible to mount a credible defense against Eason’s spurious claim without any
records!” She also argues that the wage claim is fraudulent.
¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. The
District Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and the legal issues
are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly interpreted.
Tait’s arguments regarding the party properly responsible for the wage claim do not
demonstrate error by the District Court in concluding that Tait had failed to pursue and
exhaust the administrative remedies available to raise and prove these issues.
¶9 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
6