Fired NCDOT worker hopes SCOTUS deference ruling will boost his case

Listen to this story (8 minutes)

  • A fired North Carolina Department of Transportation worker hopes the US Supreme Court's decision to throw out a 40-year-old precedent last summer will help his case at the state's highest court.
  • Thurman Crofton Savage's lawyer filed paperwork Wednesday asking the state Supreme Court for permission to file new legal briefs related to the US Supreme Court's June decision in a case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
  • The DOT fired Savage in 2019 after he failed to follow proper procedures when recertifying at least five school bus drivers. Savage argues that other workers committing similar offenses had been suspended without pay but not dismissed.

A fired North Carolina Department of Transportation employee hopes a decision last summer from the US Supreme Court can boost his legal case against the department.

North Carolina’s highest court agreed in December 2023 to hear the case of Thurman Crofton Savage, fired in 2019 from his DOT job as a driver’s education program specialist. The department said Savage recertified at least five school bus drivers without following proper procedures.

An administrative law judge ruled in 2022 that DOT could have suspended Savage without pay but did not have cause to fire him. The state Court of Appeals overturned that decision in August 2023 and ruled in favor of the DOT. The state Supreme Court issued an order one month later blocking the appellate judges’ decision.

Court filings in the Supreme Court case ended in April. But Savage’s lawyer filed a motion Wednesday asking the court to permit additional written argument from both parties in the case.

Savage specifically hopes to highlight the US Supreme Court’s June 28 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In that case, the nation’s highest court gutted a 40-year-old precedent dealing with a legal issue called “Chevron deference.” The Supreme Court majority determined that federal courts would no longer offer special deference to government agencies’ interpretations of federal laws and rules.

The Loper Bright ruling has relevance for Savage’s case, lawyer Ben Irons wrote in this week’s motion.

“Following a hearing, Administrative Law Judge J. Randolph Ward held that Mr. Savage did not violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-34.1,” the law DOT used to justify the dismissal, Irons explained. “Judge Ward based his interpretation in part on his finding that the NC DOT had never previously attempted to apply the statute to dismiss {driver’s education program specialists] for recertification offenses which involve rechecks of the driving skills of licensed and experienced drivers.”

“In two other cases, he found that the NC DOT allowed DEPSs who committed similar offenses to continue to work,” Irons added.

Ward found that the department “failed to strictly construe” the law and “did not resolve ambiguities in the statute in favor of the accused in accordance with this Court’s precedents,” Irons added. “He also observed that the powers of an administrative agency are limited to those delegated to it by the General Assembly.”

“The Court of Appeals reversed Judge Ward’s decision and, in deference to the NC DOT, adopted the NC DOT’s current interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-34.1, though it was inconsistent with all its prior and later interpretations of the statute.”

Savage would need the state Supreme Court’s permission to submit new briefs related to the Loper Bright ruling. DOT’s lawyer opposes supplemental briefing in the case, according to Savage’s court filing.

A state Supreme Court order from September 2023 offered no reason for blocking the unanimous Appeals Court ruling favoring DOT. Appellate judges had ruled that DOT could fire Savage as a driver’s education program specialist.

“The Court noted that Mr. Savage had recertified five school bus drivers without requiring them to conduct a pre-trip inspection and without their demonstrations of proper school bus operations,” Irons wrote three days before the high court issued its order. “The Court held that the dismissal of Mr. Savage was mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-34.1 (c). Because it found its decision on that issue to be dispositive, it did not consider Mr. Savage’s arguments that he was dismissed without just cause.”

Savage argued that because his recertifications “did not result in the issuance of a license or an endorsement of the license but instead only rechecks the skills of an experienced bus driver, it did not ‘concern a driver’s license,’” Irons wrote. “The NC DOT contended for the first time in its history that the statute mandated dismissal for these rechecks.”

An administrative law judge “specifically found that this was the first time that any DEPS had been dismissed for improper recertifications. All others charged for this offense were allowed to continue their employment,” Irons wrote.

Savage started working with DOT’s School Bus and Traffic Safety Unit in April 2018. His job involved teaching and testing school bus drivers for their certification and recertification. Savage also entered information about completed certification into the State Automated Driver’s License System.

“Between August and October 2019, Mr. Savage recertified at least five school bus drivers without completing all the procedures required in the School Bus & Traffic Safety Procedures Manual for DEPS, including the requirement that he observe the driver conduct a pre-trip inspection and demonstrate proper school bus operations,” Judge Chris Dillon wrote for the Appeals Court panel.

After an investigation, DOT notified Savage in November 2019 that it planned to fire him for “unacceptable personal conduct, grossly inefficient job performance, and violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-34.1.”

That statute addresses “violations for wrongful issuance of a driver’s license or a special identification card.”

The administrative law judge ruled against DOT in April 2022. The judge determined that the department had just cause to suspend Savage without pay, but not to dismiss him.

“Mr. Savage argues the statute is inapplicable because improper recertifications of school bus drivers do not involve the issuance of a license, but rather, merely allow the possessor of a driver’s license to have an endorsement on his license allowing him to operate a school bus,” Dillon wrote. “Thus, Mr. Savage contends, as the ALJ determined, recertification ‘has no impact on a driver’s license.’”

“However, Section 20-34.1(a)(3) does not merely cover information regarding the issuance of a driver’s license to someone not entitled to drive, but also to knowingly ‘enter[ing] false information concerning [an otherwise valid] driver’s license … in the records of the Division,’” Dillon added. “As conceded by the parties, to operate a school bus in North Carolina, a driver must possess a commercial driver’s license and be certified/recertified as a school bus driver by meeting other criteria, including certain matters Mr. Savage was required to confirm.”

“Here, though, Mr. Savage entered information into SADLS that certain drivers had been properly certified/recertified to operate a school bus when they had not yet met all the criteria due to Mr. Savage’s misconduct,” Dillon wrote. “And the SADLS is part of the ‘records of the Division [of Motor Vehicles].’ We, therefore, conclude Mr. Savage violated Section 20-34.1 by entering the false information ‘concerning’ at least five driver’s licenses. Accordingly, the DOT was required to terminate him.”

Related