[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-12060

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cv-00205-CG-M

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEAR CORPORATION EEDS AND INTERIORS, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(May 13, 2016)

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 1 of 10 
2

Before WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and RODGERS,

∗ District Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

This interlocutory appeal arises from the district court’s grant of a 

preliminary injunction to the Secretary of the Department of Labor (the Secretary), 

in an action against Lear Corporation and its subsidiary, Renosol Seating, LLC

(collectively, Lear). After Lear sued a former employee in state court for 

defamation and intentional interference with business relations, the Secretary 

moved for injunctive relief under the whistleblower protection provisions of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. § 660(c). The 

Secretary alleged that Lear was unlawfully discriminating against current and 

former employees in retaliation for raising concerns about health and safety 

conditions at Lear’s manufacturing plant. The district court granted the injunction 

and enjoined Lear from, inter alia, suing any current or former employee. 

On appeal, Lear challenges the district court’s jurisdiction to grant the 

injunction as well as the merits and terms of the injunction. We hold that the 

district court had jurisdiction to consider the Secretary’s request for injunctive 

relief. However, the district court erred by enjoining Lear from pursuing litigation

without finding that such litigation was either baseless or preempted. Accordingly, 

we reverse the district court’s order and vacate the injunction. 

 

∗ Honorable Margaret Catharine Rodgers, United States District Chief Judge for the 

Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 2 of 10 
3

I.

We turn first to whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter the 

preliminary injunction. We review de novo the district court’s determination that it 

had jurisdiction to order a preliminary injunction. See Lucero v. Operation Rescue 

of Birmingham, 954 F.2d 624, 627 (11th Cir. 1992). “Since federal courts are 

courts of limited jurisdiction, the court below could hear the case only if authorized 

by statute.” Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773, 777, 103 S. Ct. 2187, 2190 (1983). 

The district court’s jurisdiction here is premised on § 11(c) of the OSH Act, 

codified at 29 U.S.C. § 660(c). This provision provides:

(1) No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against 

any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or 

instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or 

related to this chapter or has testified or is about to testify in any 

such proceeding or because of the exercise by such employee on 

behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this chapter.

(2) Any employee who believes that he has been discharged or 

otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of this 

subsection may, within thirty days after such violation occurs, file 

a complaint with the Secretary alleging such discrimination. Upon 

receipt of such complaint, the Secretary shall cause such 

investigation to be made as he deems appropriate. If upon such 

investigation, the Secretary determines that the provisions of this 

subsection have been violated, he shall bring an action in any 

appropriate United States district court against such person. In 

any such action the United States district courts shall have 

jurisdiction, for cause shown to restrain violations of paragraph (1) 

of this subsection and order all appropriate relief including 

rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to his former position 

with back pay.

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 3 of 10 
4

29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(1)–(2). 

Looking to this statutory text, Lear contends that the Secretary is not 

authorized to seek injunctive relief, and for this reason, the district court lacked 

jurisdiction. We disagree. 

The Act provides: “In any such action the United States district courts shall 

have jurisdiction, for cause shown to restrain violations of [§ 660(c)(1)] and order 

all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to his 

former position with back pay.” 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(2) (emphases added). A plain 

reading of this text supports the district court’s jurisdiction to enter a preliminary 

injunction because both “restrain” and “order all appropriate relief” may be read to 

authorize injunctive relief. Cf. Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of 

Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369–70, 105 S. Ct. 1996, 2002–03 (1985) (language 

permitting the court to “grant such relief as it determines is appropriate” authorized

injunction under the Education of the Handicapped Act (internal quotation marks 

omitted and alteration adopted)). Further, Congress’ use of the word “including” 

indicates that rehiring and reinstatement are not the exclusive remedies for a

violation, but rather two examples of permitted relief. See Bloate v. United States, 

559 U.S. 196, 206–07, 130 S. Ct. 1345, 1353 (2010) (noting that the term 

“including” is an “expansive or illustrative term”). Thus, we conclude that § 11(c) 

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 4 of 10 
5

of the OSH Act confers authority to the Secretary to seek injunctive relief, and we 

do not find jurisdiction lacking on that basis.1

Having concluded that the Secretary may seek injunctive relief, the next 

question is when the Secretary may do so. Lear argues that the Secretary cannot 

file a § 11(c) action before reaching a “determination,” and, here, there was no 

determination because the Secretary’s investigation was ongoing. 

The Act authorizes the Secretary to bring an action in federal district court 

when he “determines that the provisions of this subsection have been violated,”

after “such investigation . . . as he deems appropriate.” 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(2). 

Here, the Secretary brought an action in district court after he determined Lear was 

“retaliating against employees through meritless litigation, intimidation, threats, 

suspensions and termination.” He requested injunctive relief based on his belief 

that Lear “must immediately be prevented from continuing such unlawful 

conduct.” The Secretary explicitly found that Lear’s “intimidation, termination, 

suspension, and harassment of employees . . . clearly constitute unlawful retaliation 

designed to chill cooperation with the government and undermine the Secretary’s 

ability to enforce the Act.” And the Secretary contended that “[s]uch actions have 

 1 In support of its claim that there is no jurisdiction for injunctive relief, Lear cites 

Marshall v. Gibson’s Products, Inc., an opinion from the old Fifth Circuit. See 584 F.2d 668

(5th Cir. 1978). However, that case dealt with a different section of the OSH Act, § 8 

(investigation of plant facilities), referring to § 11(c) only in dicta. See id. at 674–75. Thus, 

Marshall is not controlling as to § 11(c). And, if anything, the case cuts the other way, as

Marshall’s dicta seems to opine that injunctive relief would be appropriate under § 11(c)(2). See 

id. at 673–74; Marshall v. Shellcast Corp., 592 F.2d 1369, 1372 & n.6 (5th Cir. 1979).

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 5 of 10 
6

especially hampered the Secretary’s ability to determine the full scope of [Lear’s] 

violations of the OSH Act.” 

We can reasonably conclude from the above-referenced language that the 

Secretary investigated to the extent he deemed appropriate and determined some 

unlawful retaliation against employees had already occurred. Although the 

Secretary also referred to the investigation as ongoing, the Act does not require 

that the Secretary complete his investigation before determining that a retaliation 

violation occurred; instead, the extent of the investigation is entirely discretionary. 

The Secretary only has a duty to investigate a complaint to the extent he “deems 

appropriate,” which leaves to the Secretary the decision of how much investigation 

to conduct upon receipt of a retaliation complaint. See 29 U.S.C. § 660(2); see 

also Wood v. Dep’t of Labor, 275 F.3d 107, 111 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (noting that “[§] 

11(c)(2) designates the Secretary as the official who decides whether and to what 

extent an investigation is ‘appropriate’”); Taylor v. Brighton Corp., 616 F.2d 256, 

262 (6th Cir. 1980) (observing that Congress “deliberately interposed the 

Secretary’s investigation as a screening mechanism between complaining 

employees and the district courts”). Here, the Secretary plainly investigated as he 

deemed appropriate and, upon that investigation, determined that the Act was 

being violated by Lear’s “retaliat[ion] against employees through meritless 

litigation, intimidation, threats, suspensions and termination.” On the basis of this 

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 6 of 10 
7

determination, the Secretary then (1) sought to continue investigating in order to 

determine the extent (that is, the “full scope”) of the violations committed, and (2) 

determined that the unlawful retaliation was having a chilling effect on his 

investigation, rendering injunctive relief necessary. 

In sum, the Secretary determined Lear was violating the Act’s antiretaliation provisions and that injunctive relief would be necessary to complete the 

investigation and determine the extensiveness of these violations. The Act does 

not require more.2

 Therefore, the Secretary had authority to request injunctive 

relief, and the district court had jurisdiction to consider the Secretary’s request. 

II.

We must now consider whether the district court’s entry of the injunction 

was proper in this case. We ordinarily review the grant of a preliminary injunction 

for abuse of discretion; but, if the district court misapplies the law, “we accord no 

deference to the district court’s determinations in granting the preliminary 

 2 To the extent that the Act requires a violation determination, we find that the Secretary 

did, in fact, make such determination in this case. However, we are not convinced that the 

language permitting the Secretary to file once he “determines that the provisions of this 

subsection have been violated” is a substantial threshold hurdle to filing suit. The legislative 

history makes clear that the term “determines” was intended to give the power to the Secretary to 

“screen out” frivolous suits, so that the Secretary would only have to pursue claims that have 

actual merit. See Taylor, 616 F.2d at 261–62 (considering the legislative history and finding no 

private cause of action to pursue an OSH Act retaliatory discharge). Given that this is simply 

intended to confer discretion to the Secretary, it may not impose a significant requirement as to 

the Secretary’s ability to file in district court; instead, it is arguable that by virtue of having filed 

suit, the Secretary has shown he has made sufficient determination that this is a claim worth 

pursuing. 

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 7 of 10 
8

injunction.” Cuban Am. Bar Ass’n v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412, 1423–24 (11th 

Cir. 1995).

The Supreme Court has identified the prerequisites for enjoining lawsuits in 

this context. “The filing and prosecution of a well-founded lawsuit may not be 

enjoined as an unfair labor practice, even if it would not have been commenced but 

for the plaintiff’s desire to retaliate against the defendant for exercising rights 

protected by the Act.” Bill Johnson’s Rest., Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743, 103 

S. Ct. 2161, 2170 (1983). Hence, “[r]etaliatory motive and lack of reasonable 

basis are both essential prerequisites” before the court may enjoin litigation. See 

id. at 748–49, 103 S. Ct. at 2173. Alternatively, the district court could perform a 

preemption analysis and find that the litigation is preempted. See id. at 737 n.5,

103 S. Ct. at 2167 n.5; Can-Am Plumbing, Inc. v. NLRB, 321 F.3d 145, 151 (D.C. 

Cir. 2003) (noting that the baselessness finding in Bill Johnson’s is only required 

for suits that are not preempted). In the absence of these necessary findings, the 

court lacks authority to enter such an injunction. 

Here, the district court erred by enjoining Lear from bringing suit against 

any current or former employee based on potential for retaliation alone. It did not 

address whether Lear’s ongoing state court suit was baseless and instead focused

its analysis and terms only on retaliation. Nor did it conduct a preemption 

analysis. This does not suffice. Absent an additional finding of baselessness or a

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 8 of 10 
9

determination that the state court actions are preempted, it was improper to 

preclude Lear from pursuing litigation against current or former employees.

3

 See

Bill Johnson’s Rest., Inc, 461 U.S. at 743, 103 S. Ct. at 2170. Enjoining a party 

from pursuing an action in state court is the same as enjoining the state court. See 

Burr & Forman v. Blair, 470 F.3d 1019, 1027 n.28 (11th Cir. 2006). Having failed 

to make the necessary findings, the district court lacked authority to issue an 

injunction broadly restraining the state court from litigating Lear’s disputes. Cf. 

Rosen v. Cascade Int’l, Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1531 (11th Cir. 1994). Thus, we 

cannot uphold this injunction. 

III.

We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the 

Secretary’s request for an injunction. However, the district court should not have 

enjoined Lear from pursuing litigation without finding that the suit was both 

baseless and retaliatory, or determining that the state court action was preempted. 

Having determined that the terms of the injunction are improper, we decline to 

rewrite the injunction on the district court’s behalf. We vacate on this basis alone

 

3 While it is not immediately clear whether the court’s terms apply to Lear’s current state 

court suit, the injunction (a) was sought by the Secretary and entered by the district court 

immediately after Lear filed its action in state court and (b) certainly applies to any future court 

actions Lear may wish to bring. Even if we were to construe the district court’s injunction as 

only applying to prospective, retaliatory state court suits, we are not convinced that such an 

interpretation would save the over-broad terms of the injunction. If Lear sought to bring a future 

action in state court, it would be enjoined regardless of whether that suit was both baseless and 

retaliatory, which flies in the face of the rule announced by the Court in Bill Johnson’s. 

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 9 of 10 
10

and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. The district court’s order imposing the injunction is hereby 

VACATED and REMANDED.

Case: 15-12060 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 10 of 10