- Two state Supreme Court justices focused on the issue of judicial deference Tuesday while focusing on the case of a fired North Carolina Department of Transportation employee.
- Thurman Savage challenges his dismissal as a driver's education program speclalist. Savage recertified at least five school bus drivers without following proper procedures, DOT argued.
- The high court's decision could depend on its interpretation of a state law dealing with the "wrongful issuance of a driver’s license or a special identification card.”
The North Carolina Supreme Court could use the case of a fired state Department of Transportation employee to address the legal issue of judicial deference to government agencies. Two justices focused on deference issues during oral arguments Tuesday in Thurman Savage’s lawsuit against the DOT.
Judges exercise deference when they yield to another court or agency’s interpretation of a law or regulation.
DOT fired Savage in 2019 from his job as a driver’s education program specialist. He had admitted to recertifying at least five school bus drivers without following the proper procedure, according to the department’s court filings.
An administrative law judge ruled in 2022 that DOT could have suspended Savage without pay but did not have just 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 the following month blocking appellate judges’ decision. The high court agreed to take the case in December 2023.
In October 2024, six months after court filings had ended in the case, Savage’s lawyer asked the state Supreme Court to consider new information related to a US Supreme Court ruling. The June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo had gutted the federal courts’ 40-year-old “Chevron deference” standard.
In Savage’s case, DOT used a state law — NC Gen. Stat. § 20-34.1 — to help justify firing Savage. The fired worker’s lawyer argued that DOT never had used that law before when seeking to dismiss an employee.
“This is one of a series of cases on this calendar where we’re trying to understand references to deference that have existed in our case law for a very long time,” Justice Richard Dietz said before asking the first question during Tuesday’s arguments.
Dietz suggested that past court precedents have mentioned deference as a sign of “comity” to government agencies or lower courts.
“In other words, we’re saying we need to be respectful of the fact that someone else with a duty to interpret the law looked at this and said this is what we think it means,” he explained. “But ultimately, in every case, our role as the Supreme Court, if there’s more than one possible interpretation of the statute, is we have to decide ourselves what is the correct one. And we have to go with that even if we think some other … agency or lower court — whatever it is — on that same question of law went in a different direction.”
Justice Trey Allen holds “a number of concerns about judicial deference to administrative agencies when it comes to interpreting the law,” he told Ben Irons, Savage’s lawyer.
“When we interpret a statute, what we’re trying to do is effectuate the legislative intent,” Allen said. “Don’t we sort of cede that role if we defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute?”
“Yes, your honor, you do,” Irons responded.
“Should we do that?” Allen asked.
“No,” Irons answered.
“In this case, the department was making a decision in any way it pleased,” Irons argued. “It interpreted the statute two or three different ways to get the result that it wanted to get. That’s exactly what Loper Bright said was wrong.”
DOT does not agree that Savage’s case hinges on the issue of judicial deference. “We’ll say it until we’re blue in the face: There’s no deference in this case when we’re talking about how the Court of Appeals ruled,” said Jonathan Evans, the assistant state attorney general representing the department. “They did not say the respondent’s interpretation wins. They did their own de novo review in this case.”
A court’s ”de novo” review offers no deference to any prior decision.
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 that upheld Savage’s dismissal in 2023.
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.”