SCOVT affirms summary judgment that 21 V.S.A. § 640(c) did not require prior employer to reimburse claimant for lost wages, holding claimant had no standing to assert constitutional rights of new employer.

Mahmutovic v. Washington County Mental Health Services, Inc., 2023 VT 37

COHEN, J. Claimant Semir Mahmutovic appeals a decision of the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor concluding that claimant’s prior employer was not obligated to reimburse claimant for lost wages under 21 V.S.A. § 640(c), and that the statute was not unconstitutional as applied to claimant. We determine that claimant has conceded that the Commissioner properly interpreted § 640(c), and further conclude that claimant does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 640(c). Therefore, we affirm the Commissioner’s decision granting summary judgment to prior employer.

 

Claimant submitted a reimbursement request to prior employer for $152.72 of lost wages. Prior employer denied payment on the ground that 21 V.S.A. § 640(c), which governs workers' compensation payments for medical benefits, shifts the financial burden of covering wages to current employer.

Claimant argued below that requiring a subsequent employer to cover lost wages is unconstitutional. Prior employer argued that claimant did not have standing to bring the constitutional claim.

This Court has adopted a three-part test for standing originally articulated for federal courts: (1) injury in fact; (2) causation; and (3) redressability.  Ferry v. City of Montpelier, 2023 VT 4, ¶ 12, In other words, standing requires a litigant to demonstrate they "have suffered a particular injury that is attributable to the defendant and that can be redressed by a court of law." Parker v. Town of Milton, 169 Vt. 74, 77 (1998).

The Commissioner concluded that claimant has standing because he suffered an injury in fact when he requested lost wages and prior employer declined to pay them.

We disagree.  Even assuming that claimant's $152.72 in lost wages due under § 640(c) is an injury in fact, claimant has not demonstrated that this injury is "fairly traceable to [prior employer]'s allegedly unlawful conduct." Id. at 78, 726 A.2d at 480. Claimant has essentially accepted that the Commissioner's interpretation of the statute does not obligate prior employer to compensate him for lost wages. Therefore, his injury—his alleged loss of the property interest created by § 640(c)—is not a result of prior employer's actions. We therefore conclude that claimant does not have standing to bring this as-applied constitutional challenge.

In his briefing, claimant additionally asks us to consider his standing as a third-party beneficiary to pursue a constitutional challenge on behalf of current employer. However, "[l]ike the federal courts, we generally do not allow third-party standing." Baird v. City of Burlington, 2016 VT 6, ¶ 15, 201 Vt. 112, 136 A.3d 223 (finding no exception to general rule against third-party standing because litigants failed to show those potentially harmed in future would likely not be able to assert their own constitutional claims). Claimant provides no basis to allow him to present this constitutional claim on behalf of current employer, and we therefore conclude that he does not have third-party standing in this matter.

Affirmed.

How cited