## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3291 V ICTO R G EOR GE , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. J UN IOR A CHIEVEMENT OF C ENTRAL I NDI ANA, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:10- cv-0220-JM S -MJD

—Jan e E . M agnu s- Sti ns on, Ju dge

.
A RG UE D A PRI L 4, 2012

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 4, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch i e f J udg e, a nd F LA UMa nd M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . I n th e s um m ero f20 09 Vi ct o r Ge o r g e, a v i ce pr es i den t o fJ uni o r Ach ie ve m en t o fCe nt r alI nd ia na , I nc . , di sc o ve r ed th atmone y wi th

hel d fr om hi s pay w as not b ein g d eposi ted i nto hi s r eti r ement ac co unta nd he al ths av i ng s ac co unt
. Ov erthe next few m onths he l od ge d com pla i nts with J unio r Achi ev ement ’ s ac co unt an ts a nd s o m e ex ec ut i ve s, i n-2 N o. 11

- 3291 cl ud i ng J enni ferBurk, i ts Pres i den t an d C hi efExecuti ve Offi cer . H e co ntacte d the Un i ted S tat es Dep ar tm ent o f L ab or bu t d ec lin ed to file a w rit te n co m p lain t. In OctoberGeor ge ra i sed the i ssue w i th two m em ber s o f J un i o r Ac hi e v e men t ’ s b o a r d. T ha tmo nth he r e cei ved che c k s f o r a b o ut $ 2 , 6 0 0 t o mak e up f o r the m i sse d deposi ts plus i nter est
. Georg e was co ntem pla ti ng r eti re m ent. H i s e m plo ym enta g r e e men tr a n un t i l J un e 3 0 , 2 0 1 0 , b uti n l a t e 20 09 he h a d d i s c u s s i o n s wi th B u r ka n d o th e r s ab o u tr et i r i ng i n A pri l 2010
. On J anuary 4, 2010 , Bu rk tol d Geo rg e n ot to com e t o w or k the next day. Burk l ate r disc ove re d th atGe o r g e ha d d raw n do wn th e ac co untc o nt aini ng hi s defer re d com pe n sa tio n. S he be l i eve d that Geo rg e had acte d pre m atur el y. J unio r A chi eve m ent’ s a tto rney w ro te a l ett erst ati ng tha t George’ s t er m i nati on was effecti ve as ofD ec em ber31 , 20 09, and dem anding that he r est or e the m oneyto the defe rr ed-co m pensati on a ccount. I n r e s po ns e Ge o r g e t o l d B ur ktha ta n a men dm en t to hi s empl o y m en t ag r ee m en t ha d c ha ng ed th e vest in g date f orhi s defer re d-co m pensati on a ccount to D ec em ber1, 20 09. J unio r A chi eve m ent no w co ncedes that G eo rg e w as enti tl ed to withdraw the fund s when he di d, but i t di d not r escind hi s di schar ge. A n em p l o ye r’s failu re to d ep os it m on ey w ith h eld f ro m an e m plo yee ’ s p aycheck into that em plo yee ’ s r eti re m ent a ccount is a br each ofthe em plo yer ’ s duti es as a fi d u c i a r y u n d e r th e E mp l o y e e R e t i r e me n tI n c o me Secu rity A ct of 1974 (ER IS A ). See 29 U
. S. C
. §1104 (a). Georg e pr ote ste d his em plo yer ’ s v iolati on o fthatdutyN o. 11

- 3291 3 and m ai ntai ns thatthe prot est s le d to hi s fi ring. S ecti on 5 10 ofERIS A p ro hibi ts re tal i ati on “ aga i nst a ny per son b ec au se h e h a s g i v e n info rm at ion or h as te st ified or is about to tes ti fy in any i nquir y or pro ceedi ng r el ating to th i s [ Act ] ”
. 2 9 U. S
. C. § 1 1 4 0
. J un i o r Ac hi e v e men tar gues that the l anguage does notco ver Geor ge’ s co m pla i nts, and the di str i ct c ourtag re ed. I t g ra nted J unio r A chi eve m en t’s m otion for sum m ary j ud gm en t on th e E R I SA cl ai m a nd di smi ss ed Geo r g e’ s st at e- l aw c l ai m s wi th o ut p rej u d ice . 201 1 U .S. D ist . L EXIS11 1846 ( S. D. I nd

. S ept. 28 , 2011 ). T he di str i ct j ud ge obs er ved thatco urts o fappeals have disa gr eed abo ut the sco pe of§5 10: S om e ci rcui ts have obs er ved that“t est i fy” and “proce edi ng” denot e f o r m ala ct i o ns ( al th o ug h the se c i r cui ts di sa gree ab o ut the l eve l o ff or m al i ty re quir ed) and concl ud ed that “i nquir y” ther ef or e a l so shoul d be underst oo d as a f or m alpro ceedi ng. S ee Edwards v. A. H
. Cornell & So n, Inc. , 610 F.3d 21 7, 22 2– 2 4 ( 3 d C ir. 20 10 ); N i co l aou v. H or izon M e di a, Inc ., 40 2 F .3d 32 5, 3 3 0 ( 2 d C ir. 20 05 ); Kin g v. M ar r i ot tInt e r nat i ona l, Inc . , 33 7 F
. 3d 421, 42 7–28 ( 4th Cir
. 20 03)
. Tw o othe r ci rcui ts have h eld that§5 10 appli es to u n so licit ed info rm al c om p lain ts
. A nders on v. E le ctr ic D a ta Sy stem s C o rp . , 11 F. 3d 13 11, 1313, 1315 ( 5th Cir. 19 94); H a shim oto v. B ankof Haw aii, 99 9 F
. 2d 408, 41 1 ( 9th Ci r . 1 99 3)
. The ninth c i r cui t st at ed th atr epo r ting m i sc o nduc t i s a ne ce ss ar y s te p i n the c o m m en ce m en t o fa ny f orm al i nqui r y a nd tha t, unl es s i nf o r m alb eg i nni ngs a re co ver ed, em plo yer s would be i nd uced to dism i ss em plo yees a s s oo n as they com pla i ned oras ked a ba rbe d que st i o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t th o ug htthe4 N o. 11

- 3291 hol dings o fAnde rs on a nd H a sh im oto t o b e at ex tu ala nd f o l l o we d Edwards : § 5 1 0 ’ s l a n g u a g e d o e s n o t p r o t e c t e mplo yee s who m ake “un so l i ci ted co m pla i nts that a re not m ad e in th e c on te x t of an in q u iry o r a for m al p ro c ee d in g.” 20 11 U .S. D ist . L EXIS11 1846 at* 17–2 2. T h e d ist r i c t c ou rtw as righ t t o re ly on th e t ex t. Ka sten v. Sa int-G o b a in P erform a nc e P la stics C o rp . , 13 1 S
. Ct. 13 25, 1331 ( 2011 )
. Thi s t ext’ s inter preta ti on, how eve r, i s no t str ai ghtf or w ar d. The prov i si on i s a m ess o funpu nctuated conj uncti ons and preposi ti ons. A l though the dist ri ct cour t co ncl ud ed that th e lan guage i s unam bi guous, 20 11 U .S . D ist . L EXIS 1 1 1 8 4 6 a t * 2 2 , i t i s a ny thing b ut
. S e e al so Edwards , 6 10 F
. 3d at2 24
. W he n de al i ngwith a m bi g uo us anti

- retal i ati on pro vi si ons, we are supposed to r eso l ve the a m bi gui ty i n f avo r ofpro tect i ng em plo yee s. S ee Ka sten , 131 S. C t. at 13 33 –3 5; Crawf or d v
. M e t r opol i t an G overnm entof Nashvill e, 555 U
. S. 271, 278– 79 (2009). Jun ior A ch ievem en t d oes not qu arrel w ith G eorge’s conte nti on that he has s ati sfi ed the fi rs t par t o f§5 10 by “gi v[ i ng] i nfo rm ati on” to executi ves such as Burk. I t den i es , howev er, tha t an y “ i nqui r y ” o cc ur r ed. The p h ra se “h as giv en info rm at ion or h as t e st ified or is abou t to te s tify” p rovide s con tex t tha t help s us un d erst an d “ i nqui r y . ” The c l au se “ ha s g i ve n inf o r m ation” cove rs ev er y k i nd o fco m m unica ti on, wh i l e “ has t est i fied ori s about to tes ti fy” denotes a type ofco m m unica ti on i n a m or e for m alse tting, such a s a tr i alo r adm i ni str ativ e h ea rin g. T h e la tt er lan gu ag e im p lies a lev el of fo rm ali ty

—but notnece ssa ri l y for m al i ty i n “gi v[ i ng] i nfo rm ati on”. A natur ali nfe re n c e fr om the f act that the s tatuteN o. 11

- 3291 5

re fer s t o “ giv [in g] in for m a tio n ” in ad d itio n to te st ify i ng i s th a t“ g i v [ i n g ] i n f o r ma t i o n ” c o v e r s i n f o r ma l c o mm uni ca ti o ns

— and, i finfor m alco m m unica ti ons ar e co ver ed, “inquir y” cannot be l i m i ted to f or m alpro ceedi ngs. T h e p ar tie s’ d i s a gr ee m en t c en te rs on “in q u iry ” in the pr e po s i t i o na l ph r a s e “ i n a ny i nqui r y or pro c e e di ng”. “Inquir y” coul d m ean s om ethi ng o fficial, such a s the i nvest i gat i on that the Dep ar tm ent of Laborco nd ucts b e f o r e d e c i d i n g wh e th e r t o fi l e s u i t u nde r E R I S A, buts o m et i m es a n inqui r y mean s no th i ngm ore t ha n a questi on. Dic ti onar i es i ncl ud e bo th f or m aland i n for m al un d erstan d ings of “i nq uiry.” J un ior A ch ievem en t favors the for m alundersta nd i ngs, but Ka sten w ar ns ag ai nst di sc ar di ngde fi ni ti ons tha t woul d m ak e se ns e i n the st at u to ry co n te x t. K a sten hel d that r eta l i ati on be cause a n “ e mpl o y e e h a s fi l e d a nyc o mpl a i nt ” ( 2 9 U. S
. C. §21 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) ) i s no t l i mi t e d t o wr i t t e n fi l i ng s . 1 3 1 S. Ct. at 1336
. Th e C ou rt found i t significant that t h e w ord “file d ” so m et im es r efe rs t o or al s ta te m en ts
. Id

. at 1331 –33. Si m i l ar ly, o ne co m m on usag e o f“inquir y” i s a s a syno nym fo r “questi on. ” Un l ess the str ucture of§5 10 m ake s e quati ng “inquir y” and “questi on” i ncongr uous, Kast en te l l s us, we shoul d al l ow the i nfo rm alse nse o f “i nquir y” as w el l as the f or m alo ne. Both the i ni ti alcl auses i n §51 0 a nd the pr ep os iti onal phrase that m odi fi es them em plo y the d isj uncti ve, w hi ch i m pli es that in for m aland f or m alapproa ches ar e s epara te tr acks , both of w hi ch are cove re d. Se cti on 5 10 c an be p ar se d th is w ay : (( ha s given inform ation) or( ha s te st ifi ed o r i s ab o ut to testify) )6 N o. 11

- 3291 in ( an y (( inq uiry) or( p roceed ing)))
. Lik e wi s e we c a n g r o up the a c t i o ns a nd s e t t i ng s bas ed on f or m al i ty: (( ha s given inform ation) in ( an y i nq uiry))
or( (has tes tified or i s abou t to testify) in ( a nyp r o c e e ding)). This un d er stand i ng ab out w hi ch w or ds go with which othe r w or ds i s not com pel l ed by rul es of gr am m ar

— th e l anguage is a m bi g uo us

—but cl ues incl ud i ng t h e s i m i l ar o r der i ngo fthe i nf o r m ala nd f o r m alo pti o ns l en d supp or t t o spl i tting the pro vi si on i nto tw o paral l eltr acks

. J uni o r Achi ev ementc o nt en d s th at, i f“ que st i o n” i s o ne m eani ng o f“inquir y”, then that sense m ust ap p ly to qu e s t i o ns a s k e d of

the em plo yee but not q u es ti ons ask ed byan em p loy ee . Edwards , 610 F.3d at22 3 , c am e t o t h is co nc l us i o n. W e do no t se e i t th i s way, ho wev er . The statu te d oes not sp ecify w ho as ks th e qu estion or, m ore ge n er ally , in itia te s t h e i n q u iry . Th er e is n o lin gu ist ic reason w h y “ inq uiry” can not refer to the em p loyee’s questi ons as w el l as the em plo yer ’ s. M ostque st ion s (o r ob se rv ati ons) wil l l ead to questi ons i n re turn; after Geo r g e co m pl ained, mana g er s atJ uni o r Achi ev ement as ke d q u es tio n s of h im
. T re at in g §51 0 as co ve r i n g on ly hal fo fthe dial ogue would not m ake se nse. Bec au se § 51 0 refer s to i nqui r i es wi th o uts pec i fy i ng w ho i s doi ng the i nquir i ng, i t l ogi cal l y c ove rs em plo yee s’ in q u i r ies
. C raw

fo rd p ro vid es so m e s u p p or t fo r th is und er sta nd i ng. Ti tl e VI I ’ s a nti

- re tal i ati on pro vi si on ma k e s i t“ u n l a wfu l

. . . f o r an y e mp l o y e r t o d i s c r i m-N o. 11

- 3291 7 i nate aga i nst a ny o fhi s e m plo ye es . . . bec ause he has opposed any pract i ce m ade an u n l aw ful em plo ym en t p ra c tic e b y [ T itle V II]”. 42 U .S.C . §20 00 e– 3(a ). In Crawf o rd the em plo yerpro posed append i ng “a cti vel y” an d “ co ns i st en tly ” to “ o ppo se d, ” bu t th e Cou r t co nc lu d ed th at su c h ela b or a tio n s a re u n w ar ra n te d an d h eld that em p loy ees ar e pr ote cted wh etherthey“o pp ose ” unlawfulprac ti ces spontaneo usl y o r i n re spon se to questi ons re cei ved fro m o ther s. 55 5 U .S. a t 2 76–7 9. J unio r A c h iev em en t p ro p os es t o ad d m od ifiers su c h as “fo rm al” or“s ol i ci ted” t o the word “inquir y” i n §510 . Justas in C raw fo rd, we m us t en f o r ce the t ex t as en acte d , wi th o ut the a dd i ti ons. S ee al so Ka sten , 1 31 S
. Ct
. a t 13 30
. The gr am m ati cals tr ucture and functi ons of§5 10 do not su ppo r t read ing th e st atut e as i fi t r ea d: “ f o r g i vingi nfor m at ion
. . . inre s p o n s et o an y i nqui r y ” ( addi ng th e it alic ize d w or d s t o t h e e n ac te d te x t). C raw fo rd a dm oni shes us to re si st the ur ge to re ad w or ds i nto sta tutes
. The pr epo si ti on “ i n”

— i n the phrase “ in any inq uiry o r p r o c e e di ng ” ( e mpha s i s a dde d)

— offers s om e sup p ort f o r J uni o rAchi ev ement ’ s po si ti o n. S ubs ti tu te “ que st i o n” for “i n q u iry ” in th is p h ra se , an d it is n otgra m m at ica l. St ill, w e t h in k t h e p re p o s i t ion al p h ra se to be p rim ar ily co nc erne d wi tha s et ting

— th e “in” t el l s us tha t th e i nfo rm ation h as to be part of, r atherthan extr aneous to, th e in q u iry or p ro c ee d in g. It su p p lies a loc at ion , a “w here .” Giving i nfo rm ati on i n a quest i on m eans that th e i nformat i o n i s i m par te d i n the f o r m o fa que st i o n; that i s a how r atherthan a w here

. Con te xttell s us tha t al l po ss ibl e defi ni ti o ns o fthe w or d “ i nqui r y ” c a nn o tb e p l ug g e d in di r e c t l y ; i tc a nno t8 N o. 11

- 3291 in c lu d e a ll p os sib le q u es tio n s . F or th e p u rp os e o f th is provi si on the apt i nfo rm alusag e o f“inquir y” m igh t be “[ t] he act i on o fas kin g orquesti oni ng”. 7 The O xfo rd E ng lish D ictio na ry10 10 ( 2d ed. 198 9). That phrase could be s ubsti tuted for “ i nquir y” i n §51 0. The se tting f or thi s a cti on would be the w here i n w hi c h the gi vi ng o f i nfo rm ati on o ccurs and coul d range fro m a full

- fledged corp orate inq uir y t o a bri ef inform al inq uiry w he re the e m plo yee gi ves i n for m at i on i n the sam e br eath as ask i ng a questi on. Thi s co nstr ucti on would n ot r est ri ct th e scop e of th e covered cond uc t beca us e, a n y t im e there i s a questi on, ther e m ust al so be som eone ask in g it, b ut i t doe s e ase co ncer ns o fi m perfect paral l elco nstr ucti on. Thi s pro vi si on co uld nev erbe m i sta ken fo r be au ti fulpr o se b uts ti l l, g i ve n K a s ten a nd C raw fo rd, acce ptings o m e awk wa rd ne ss i s be tt ertha n t r ea ting §510 as a w hol e a s l i m i ted to f or m alpro ceedi ngs o r em plo yer - i ni ti ate d i nquir i es. The S ec r etary o fLabo r fi l ed an am i cu s c ur i aeb r i e fs up po r ting Geo r g e. S he fi l ed bri efs i n Edwards a nd N i co l aou a s we l l a nd b e l i e v e s tha t he r b r i e f s c o l l e c t i v e l y pro vi de an understa nd in g of§5 10 to w hi ch the cour ts m ust d efer un d er Aue rv. Rob b i ns , 5 1 9 U. S
. 4 5 2 , 4 6 2 ( 1 9 9 7 )
. S o me J usti ces have questi oned the propri etyo fgi vin g Che vron defere nce ( see C hev ron U .S.A . Inc. v. Na tura l R esou rces D e f e ns eCounc i l, Inc . , 4 67 U
. S. 8 37( 19 84 ) ) t o po si ti o ns tak en i n br i ef s, and the Court as a whole has fl agg ed the s ubj ect f orfurtherat te n ti on. S ee Chr i s t ophe rv. Sm ith K line B eecha m C o rp . , 1 3 2 S. Ct
. 2156, 2165–6 9 (2012). The Co urt l eft th e su bj ec t o peni n C hristo ph er, a n d we can do s o here as w el l, bec ause Che vron ap p lies on lyN o. 11

- 3291 9 when ana g en cyha s th e au tho r i tyt o i ss ue r egul at i o ns or enf or ce the r ule s in adm i ni str ati ve proce edi ngs. W he re “C ong r e s s has exp ressly established the Jud ici ary an d n otth e D ep ar tm en t o f L ab or as th e ad j u d ica to r of . .

. rig h ts of ac tio n aris in g u n d er th e s ta tu te ”, Ch e vr on does n otap p ly

— for th e pre m ise of Che vron is d el ega ti on t o an ag en c y. A dam s FruitC o . v . Ba rret t, 49 4 U.S
. 63 8, 64 9–50 ( 19 90 )
. The S ec r et ar y ha s no de l eg at ed r ul emak i ng o r a dj udi ca ti ve a utho r i tyc o nc erni ng§ 510; i ns te ad th e S ec r et ar y a ct s as a pr o secut o r, b r i ng i ngs ui ts a sk i ng for j ud ici al enforcem en t. See 29 U
. S. C
. §1132 (a)( 5), ( e )( 1 ). So al though we gi ve the S ecr eta ry ’ s a rgu m ents re spectful consi derat i on , we do not“defer ” t o the Depart

m ent’ s posi tio n . S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ad Corp. , 53 3 U .S. 21 8 (2 00 1); Ski dm ore v. Swi f t& Co. , 323 U
. S. 134 (1944). M os t ofthe Se cre tar y’ s a rgum ents have been add re sse d al re ady, but she offer s o ne co ntenti on that nei therGeor ge norany other c ou rto fappeal s e m bra ces. I t i s th at, e ve n i f“ i nqui r y ” m ea ns f o r m ali nque st s, the i ni ti algr i evance bythe em plo yee co uld be co nsi dered th e fi r stpa r t o ftha t pr o ce ss j us t as a c o m pl ainti s th e fi rs t s tep i n ci vi l l i ti gat i on. S ee Has him oto , 99 9 F
. 2d at 411; se e a l so N eal v. H oneyw el l Inc. , 33 F. 3d 860, 86 3–64 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( the F al se Clai m s Act’s ant i- re tal i ati on provi si on cover s ini ti ali nvest i gat i ons as the fi rs t s tep i n an “a cti on fi l ed orto b e filed ”)
. Thi s co ntenti on has f or c e . Co ns i de r : a c o mpl a i nt s t a nd i ng a l o ne i s not “ci vi l l i ti gat i on, ” but i t i s sti l l the fi rs t part ofth e fo rm al li tigation p roc e ss. U ns oli cited com p lai nt s often req uire i nv esti g at i o n b y the g o ve r nm en t o r e m pl o y er, making furtheract i on

— that i s, a f or m al“inquir y”

— i nevi tabl e.10 N o. 11

- 3291 Se e Cen t r al St at e s , So ut he as tan d S outhwe s tA r e as Pe ns i on Fund v. Central Transport, Inc. , 4 72 U
. S. 55 9, 57 2–73 ( 1985 ) ( disc ussi ng an ER I SA fi du ci ar y’ s duti es to ensure that the pl an’ s fund s a re notm i sused)

. I fa t th e end ofan i nv e s t i g a t i o n the i ni t i a l c o mpl a i ntwo ul d b e c o ns i de r ed par t o fthe “ i nqui r y, ” sh o ul d tha t co m pl aintb e ex cl ud ed j ust be cause the invest igat i on hal ts ear l y ( here , bec au se th e em p loyer m ad e good the inj ury)? W e concl ud e that the best re ading of §510 i s one th at di vi des the wor l d i nt o the i nf o r m als phe r e o f g i ving i nf o r m at i o n in o r i n r espo ns e to i nqui r i es a nd the f o r m als phe r e o ft es ti fy i ngi n pr o ce eding s. Thi s m ea ns tha t a n e mpl o y e e ’ s g r i e v a nc e i s wi thin § 5 1 0 ’ s sco pe whethe r o r notthe e m pl o y ers o l i ci te d i nf o r m at i o n. I t doe s no t m ean that § 510 covers tr i vi albel l yaches

— the sta tute re quir es the r eta l i ati on t o be “ because ” of a pro tect ed acti vi ty. S ee Ka sten , 13 1 S
. Ct. at13 34–3 5. So m eone m ust a sk a quest i on, an d t he adver se acti on m us t be cau sed by the qu est ion or th e resp ons e. W ha t’s m or e, the gr i evance m ust be a plau sibl e o ne, tho ugh not necessar i l y o ne o n w hi ch the em plo yee i s co rr ect. W e hav e hel d that the anti

- re tal i ation pro vi si on o f Tit l e VI Idoes notpro tectem plo yee s who m ake i nsubst an tia l c o m p lain ts . See , e.g., M atts on v. C aterpill ar, Inc. , 35 9 F.3d 88 5, 8 90 –9 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. Tha t’ s equa l l y t r ue f or§5 10. Georg e no ti fi ed J un ior Achieve m ent o fthe potenti al bre ach o fit s fi du ci ar y duti es and aske d (r epeate dly ) w hat would be done t o re m edy the s i tuati on. Those co nv ersa ti o ns i nv o l ve d a n “ i nqui r y, ” as we unde r st an dN o. 11

- 3291 11 that w or d, because J unio r A ch ieve m ent r esponded to them r ath er t h an i gnor i ng the m . ( I fi t had i gnor ed th em, the y c o ul d no t hav e ca us ed th e di sc ha r g e. ) The dist ri ct c ourtm ust deci de w hether t h er e i s s om e o ther gr ou n d on w h ich th is cas e m ay b e res olv ed sh or t o ft ria l, o r whethe r a t r i alo n c au sa ti o n i s ne ce ss ar y . The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s vacated, and the case i s r emande d f o r pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

9- 4- 12