NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a1177n.06
No. 11-3965
UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T ROBERT W. REAMER, Petitioner,

v. UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF L AB OR, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM A F I

NAL ORDER OF TH E ADMI NI STRATI VE REVI EW BO ARD

Be fore : MARTI

N and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; ECONOMUS, District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Robert W. Reamer , a pro se Michig an resident, petitions for revie w o f a final order of the United States Depa rtment of L abor’ s Administrative Review Boa rd aff irming an administrative law judge ’s (AL J ) decision g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of For d M otor Company (F ord), F ord Motor Credit Company (F ord Credit), a

nd twelve individuals. I n Marc h 2008, Reame r fi l ed a complaint with the Depa rtment of L abor’ s Occ upational Sa fety and Hea lth Administration alleg ing that the responde nts vio la te d th e wh is tl e b lo w e r - p r o te c ti o n provision of the Sarbane s-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, by hara ssing him and terminating his employ

ment in reta liation for eng ag ing in protec ted activity

. Reamer alleg ed that, in Marc h and May 2006, he filed complaints with the Fe dera l Bur eau of I nvestig ation (“F BI ”), asser ting that For d

The Honor able Peter

C. Economus, United States Senior District J udg e for the Northe rn * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.No. 11-3965 - 2 - officia ls ha d encour ag ed the FB I to inve stigate a deale rship for fra ud, and the FB I had pursued the investigation despite being t o l d by Reamer , a supervisor with For d Credit’s Dea ler Field Credit Depa rtment, that no fra

ud occur red. I n May

2006, Reamer

also sent e- mails to (1) his supervisor,

an d (2 ) Wil liam Clay For d, J r. and For d’s Boa rd of Direc tors, stating that he had rec eived a threatening telephone call that might have b ee n m ad e by a For d employ ee. He also complained about the init i at i o n o f t he FB I investigation despite his statements that no fra ud had occur

red. Reamer was discharg ed from his e mploy ment with F ord Credit in 2008, afte r a subordinate filed a sexual-hara ssment complaint ag ainst him. The Secre tary of L abor dismiss ed Reamer ’s complaint, finding that Reamer ’s protec ted activity was not a c ontributing fa ctor in his discharg e. Reamer then requeste d a hea ring befor e an AL J

. Prior to the hear ing, the AL J g rante d a motion for summary judgme nt filed by the responde nts, finding that Reamer failed to establish that the complaints he submitt ed to the FB I and For d officia ls constituted protec ted activity

. Reamer appea led the AL J ’s order to the Boa rd. The Boa

rd aff irmed the g rant of summary judgme nt in the responde nts’ favor , ag ree ing with the AL J ’s deter mination that Reamer “fa iled to g ener ate a g enuine issue of materia l fac t that he eng aged in protec ted activity under [S arba

nes-Oxley ].” The Boa

rd noted that, “[f]rom March throug h J uly 2006, Reamer made

sever al communica t i o n s t o supervisors at For d and to the FB I ,” but he never stated in these complaints that he had evidenc e of fra ud. I n fac t, the purpose of Reamer ’s communications was to inform the F BI

and compa

ny officia ls that no fraud ha d occur red. On appea l, Reamer argues that: 1) internal complaints that he filed on May 1, 2006, and May 3, 2006, constituted whistleblower complaints under section 1514A; 2) the Boa rd err ed in focusing solely on the co m p l ai n t s that he filed with the FB I , which, he now conce des, do not constitute protec ted conduct; 3) the Boa rd violated his due proce ss rig hts beca use its decision was arbitra ry and
capr icious; and 4) his prote cted a ctivity was a contributing fac tor in his discharg e. W e w i l l
set aside the Boa

rd’s order if it is unsupported by substantial evidenc e, or is arbitra ry and capr icious,No. 11-3965 - 3 - an abuse of discre tion, or otherwise not in ac corda nce w ith the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706; Sasse v. U.S. Dep’ t of Labor , 409 F.3d 773, 778 ( 6th Cir. 2005). I n rele vant par

t, section 1514A provides that publicly trade d companies may not disc harg e an employ ee beca use of any lawful act d o n e b y t h e employ ee
. . . to provide information, cause information to b e p rovi ded, or otherwise assist in an investigation reg arding any conduct which the employ ee rea sonably believes consti t u tes a violation of section 1341 [m ail fra

ud], 1343 [wire fra

ud], 1344 [bank fra

ud], or 1348 [securities fra ud], any rule or reg

ulation of the Securities and Ex chang e Commi ssion, or any provision of Fe dera l law rela

ting to fra

ud ag ainst share holders, when the information

. . . is provided to . . . a pe rson with supervisory authority over the employ ee . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a )(1)

. To state a claim under this provision, a plainti ff must show that: 1) he
eng ag ed in conduct that section 1514A protec ts; 2) the employ er knew or suspected that the plaintiff
eng ag ed in pr otected c onduct; 3) the plaintiff suf fer ed an unf

avora ble per sonnel ac tion; and 4) the circ umstances wer e s ufficie nt to raise the infere nce that the protec ted activity was a contributing fac tor in the adve rse pe rsonnel ac tion. 29 C.F.R. § 1980.104(e)( 2). The Boa rd did not commit reve rsible err or. We note that the Boa rd did not focus solely on Reamer ’s complaints to the FB I , but instead evaluated the content of all co m munications that Reamer made to both the FB I and For d officia ls from Marc h 2006 throug h J uly 2006. Reamer now

co n t ends that his protec ted conduct consisted solely of a May 1, 2006, e-ma il to his boss, To m Schneider ; and a Ma

y 3, 2006, e-ma il to W illiam C lay For d, J r. The May 1, 2006, e-ma il rela y ed conce rns about a threa tening telephone call that Reamer had

rec eived; an internal investigation into his rela tionship with a fema le employ ee; and his conce rn that the FB I was conducting a frivolous fra ud investigation of a deale rship. Be cause this e-ma il neither stated nor sug g ested that For d had committed fra ud or violated secur ities laws, it did not constitute protec ted conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a )(1)

. The May 3, 2006, e-ma il to For d raised the same

conce rns as the May 1, 2006, e-ma il a nd asked For d and the Boa rd of Direc tors to inve stigate “theNo. 11-3965 - 4 - possibili ty that illega l acts may have been committed by employ ees of For d Credit and For d Motor Company .” This ref

ere nce to illega l acts appea rs to rela te to the t h reatening telephone call that Reamer rec eived and the i nitiati o n o f t h e FB I investigation. These acts do not violate or relate t o section 1514A. There fore , t h e Bo ar d proper ly conclude d that this e-ma il also did not qualify as protec ted conduct under section 1514A. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a )(1)

. Be cause the Boa rd proper ly applied the law to the fac ts in aff irming the AL J ’s decision, the Boa rd’s decision is not arbitra ry or capr icious. The pe tition for reviewis denied.