环境法律
清洁水法

迈克尔和尚特尔·萨克特在牧师湖附近买了一处房产, 爱达荷州, 并开始用泥土回填这片土地，为盖房子做准备. 根据环境保护署(EPA), Sacketts回填财产违反了清洁水法(CWA), 禁止向“美国水域”排放污染物(WOTUS). 环境保护署认定这是违法行为，因为该房产靠近一条流入小溪的沟渠, 流入神父湖的水, 一个通航, 州内的湖.

萨克特夫妇提起诉讼，声称他们的财产不构成WOTUS. The district court granted summary judgment (court-ordered judgment without a trial) for the EPA and the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed, holding the CWA covers wetlands with an ecologically significant connection to traditional navigable waters and that the Sacketts’ wetlands meet that standard.

美国.S. 最高法院推翻了第九巡回法院的判决, 认定符合《澳门棋牌娱乐游戏平台》的WOTUS资格, wetlands must be indistinguishably part of a body of water that itself constitutes “waters” under the CWA. The Supreme Court did not defer to the EPA’s interpretation that included wetlands adjacent to covered waters if the wetlands possessed significant link to traditional navigable waters. 而, the Supreme Court held the CWA extends only to wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with “waters” of the United States — i.e., 有一个相对永久的水体与传统的州际通航水域相连, 这使得很难确定水的终点和湿地的起点. 应用这些标准, 最高法院裁定，根据《澳门网络娱乐游戏平台》，萨克特夫妇的财产不构成湿地.

Sackett v. Envtl. 布鲁泰克. 机构, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023).

就业法
第七条

Gerald Groff is a Christian and took a mail delivery job with the United States Postal Service (USPS). 他的宗教信仰规定星期天应该用来做礼拜和休息. 最初, 格罗夫的职位不包括周日的工作, 但在美国邮政开始为亚马逊提供周日送货服务后，情况发生了变化. 为了避免周日轮班的要求, 格罗夫转到一个不提供周日送货服务的农村邮局. 亚马逊在那个车站开始送货后, 格罗夫仍然不愿意在周日工作，美国邮政将他的快递重新分配给其他员工. 格罗夫因未能在周日工作而受到严厉惩罚，最终辞职.

格罗夫根据1964年《澳门棋牌娱乐游戏平台》第七章提起诉讼, asserting USPS could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship on the conduct of [USPS’s] business.” The district court granted summary judgment (court-ordered judgment without a trial) to USPS and the Third Circuit Court affirmed based on the U.S. 最高法院对环球航空公司的判决. v. 哈迪森(432 U ..S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113), which it interpreted to mean “that requiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de minimis cost’ [insignificant cost] to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.” The Third Circuit found the de minimis cost standard was met and exempting Groff from Sunday work had “imposed on his coworkers, 扰乱了工作场所和工作流程, 员工士气低落.”

最高法院推翻了第三巡回法院的判决, 在哈德森的领导下澄清这一点, an “undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.这是一项针对事实的调查，必须考虑“手头案件的所有相关因素”, 包括有争议的住宿以及它们在性质上的实际影响, 雇主的规模和运营成本.’”该案被发回下级法院，以适用最高法院阐明的标准.

Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023).

就业法
责任残疾

Todd Weeres从1998年开始在怀特公园市担任巡警. 在他任职期间, 韦尔斯经历了许多创伤性事件, but a 2010 encounter with an armed suspect resulted in Weeres having nightmares and mental health symptoms that affected his ability to perform the job. Weeres was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and received treatment for several months, 但由于担心耻辱和工作保障，他停止了治疗. 当他的症状在2019年2月恶化时, 他再次被诊断出患有创伤后应激障碍，并被限制担任警察. Weeres later applied to the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) for duty-disability benefits and was found totally disabled from his role as a patrol officer. Weeres的雇佣被终止，PERA批准了他的工作伤残津贴申请. 市澳门网络娱乐游戏平台要求举行有争议案件的听证会.

在有争议的案件听证会之后, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a decision determining Weeres did not have a duty disability and the city was not required to provide continuing health insurance coverage to him. The ALJ found Weeres had not met his burden to prove the condition could be expected to persist for a year or that the condition bore the necessary causal connection to his performance of inherently dangerous duties as a police officer. 在决定中, ALJ在很大程度上依赖于医生对其他人诊断的创伤后应激障碍的批评，并得出结论, 因为PTSD诊断的缺陷, 记录不足以支持韦尔斯有职务残疾的推论.

明尼苏达州上诉法院推翻了联邦司法法官的判决, finding it based on an error of law because the ALJ improperly assigned the burden of proof to Weeres. 根据管辖争议案件的行政规则, 提出诉讼的一方必须以证据证明事实, 除非实体法另有规定的负担或标准. 本案中，明尼苏达州法规第299A条.465没有规定举证责任. 因为市澳门网络娱乐游戏平台寻求有争议的案件听证会, it has the burden to prove the employee did not suffer a duty disability within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, 第353节.01, 41分部. The court of appeals also found the ALJ’s reliance on one doctor’s testimony was unreasonable given the entire record, and the ALJ’s failure to address all the relevant evidence lent support to the conclusion that the decision was the product of will rather than judgment.

怀特公园市诉. Weeres， A22-0956(明尼苏达州. Ct. 应用程序. (非先例意见).

澳门网络娱乐游戏平台豁免权
官方的免疫力

Brent LaFavor是明尼阿波利斯市的扫雪机司机. 在操作扫雪机时, he heard a noise and briefly looked to see if he had hit something or if the plow was damaged — neither occurred. 然而, 在短暂的分心之后, 他回头看了看路，发现自己已经经过了一个停车标志. 拉弗放慢了速度，但没有立即停下来. 当他看到唐纳德·斯蒂尔的车时，他试图离开十字路口. 当斯蒂尔意识到犁没有停下来时, 他刹住车，绕过扫雪机, 撞上了犁的后轮. 斯蒂尔以玩忽职守的罪名起诉拉弗和这座城市.

The district court granted motion for summary judgment (court-ordered judgment without a trial) and dismissed the matter with prejudice, 这意味着原告不能重新提出同样的索赔. It determined an official-immunity defense was available to LaFavor because his failure to stop at the stop sign was a discretionary action, 斯蒂尔也不认为拉弗的行为是故意或恶意的. The district court also concluded the city was entitled to vicarious official immunity and declined to determine whether statutory immunity applied.

斯蒂尔上诉, 争论的原因是拉弗没有注意到停车标志，直到为时已晚, 拉弗对他的犁的操作没有任意的决定, 政策的实施, 或者与他没有在停车标志前停车有关的安全问题. 明尼苏达州上诉法院不同意, 认定拉弗的行为是自由裁量的, 不受法律权威或法律强制或规定的, because he applied the brakes to slow down and considered pressing the brakes harder but did not for fear of an accident. LaFavor’s decision to continue driving while investigating the cause of the thud was the reason LaFavor was not aware of the stop sign until he was far enough into the intersection to be faced with the additional decision to slow down or jam the brakes. These decisions required the exercise of independent judgment to fulfill the objective of snow removal in what LaFavor perceived to be the safest manner possible given the road conditions and limited visibility.

Steele also argued the city could not claim official immunity because “the exercise of judgment and discretion requires the existence of an identifiable factor,“这个因素是导致拉弗尔分心的巨大噪音的原因. The court found no authority in support of Steele’s argument and found the cause of the noise was not a material fact. The fact that the thud occurred caused LaFavor to weigh considerations and make discretionary decisions leading up to the choice not to stop at the stop sign. 因此, application of official immunity was appropriate and the court affirmed the district court’s decision.

斯蒂尔v. LaFavor， A22-1714(明尼苏达州. Ct. 应用程序. (非先例意见).

作者:艾西亚·戴维斯，明尼苏达城市联盟的研究律师. 联系人: (电子邮件保护) or (651) 281-1271.