On this blog, we don’t often discuss statutes that apply specifically to federal employees.  Despite our high opinions of those willing to work the front lines for the federal government, there are many laws that just don’t apply to the general population.  However, a recent decision came out of the Eighth Circuit, overruling Minnesota’s esteemed Justice Donovan Frank, pertaining to the definition of Law Enforcement Officer under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), and we found it instructive not just in the field of tort claims, but in understanding how courts will look at the duties of employees in determining their employment statuses.

In Iverson v. United States of America, Transportation Security Administration, Iverson, an airline passenger going through security at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, was searched by hand, but was allegedly pushed forward by the TSA officers searching him, and suffered injury.  Iverson sued for both battery as well as negligence, and the TSA defended itself through a sovereign immunity defense.  The TSA argued that because the TSA officers were neither investigative nor law enforcement officers, the agency could not be sued for their actions.  Iverson argued otherwise.  As the issue of whether the TSA officers were law enforcement officers had never been decided in the Eighth Circuit, the court undertook the challenge of answering the question.

Under the FTCA, investigative or law enforcement officer is defined as “any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.”  As the TSA itself referred to the officers as “Transportation Security Officers,” the court quickly dispatched with the question of whether they were officers under the law.  It also quickly did away with the government’s argument that the TSA officers were not “empowered by law” to execute searches because there was not specific statutory language granting TSA officers the authority to search passengers prior to boarding flights (one wonders how aggressively the TSA argued that its officers were not authorized by law to search passengers after 20 years of strict security standards for passengers).

The question of whether these officers were engaged in law enforcement activities proved only somewhat more difficult to determine.  The government argued that the TSA officers did not execute searches for violations of Federal Law, in contradiction of the meaning of the word “search,” and the experience of every passenger who has boarded a plane in the United States since 2001.  The government also argued that the searches referred to in the Act referred to traditional law enforcement searches.

The court found that the term “search” was neither of obscure or doubtful meaning, and that the powers granted to TSA officers clearly showed they were empowered to execute searches, and put them under the waiver of sovereign immunity for investigative or law enforcement officers under the Act.

Again, this is not a decision that specifically applies to the common employment situations you’ll experience.  However, the classification of employees is extremely important in circumstances such as bargaining unit clarifications, FLSA exemptions, and independent contractor status.  This decision shows that it is incredibly important to look at not just the traditional duties carried out by a certain kind of employee, but the actual duties being performed by employees.  It is also important for employers, when creating new positions, to understand the ramifications of the authority granted to their employees and what impact that authority can have on their employment status.

As we’ve said before, the classification of employees can have a huge impact on the way you run your business.  If you, or your organization, need assistance with the classification of your employees, contact the Wiley Law Office, for legal advice that works.