Opinion ID: 71947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adverse actions against Harrison

Text: 19 Before turning to these happenings at Browns Ferry, a word is in order about how the evidentiary framework of 42 U.S.C. § 5851 operates. The Secretary and S&W have evinced considerable disagreement over the extent to which this framework draws on the general law of employment discrimination. We think it important to dispel some of the seeming perplexity of 42 U.S.C. § 5851. 20 In 1992, Congress amended § 5851 to codify a particular framework regarding burdens of proof where no statutory guidance existed before. Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-486, § 2902(d); see also Mackowiak v. University Nuclear Systems, Inc., 735 F.2d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir.1984) (upholding similar framework). Under the statutory framework, a complainant must first pass a gatekeeper test before an inquiry may commence. The Secretary may investigate only if the complainant succeeds in making a prima facie showing that retaliation for protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(3)(A). Then the investigation must go forward, unless the employer demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of such behavior. 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(3)(B). 21 Section 5851's reference to a prima facie showing has bred some confusion, chiefly because the phrase evokes the sprawling body of general employment discrimination law. See, e.g., Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989); Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The Secretary of Labor and S&W have quarreled over how these cases and their innumerable progeny affect Section 5851's evidentiary burdens. But Section 5851 is clear and supplies its own free-standing evidentiary framework. After a complainant has cleared the prima facie gatekeeper test--and assuming she has not been knocked out by a preemptory clear and convincing response from the employer--the Secretary is to investigate whether the complainant's behavior actually was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action. 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(3)(C). The burden to persuade the Secretary falls upon the complainant, and she must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Dysert v. Sec. of Labor, 105 F.3d 607, 610 (11th Cir.1997). If the complainant succeeds, the employer has a second chance to offer clear and convincing evidence that it would have done the same thing anyway, i.e., in the absence of such behavior. § 5851(b)(3)(D). 22 For employers, this is a tough standard, and not by accident. Congress appears to have intended that companies in the nuclear industry face a difficult time defending themselves. Recent accounts of whistleblower harassment at both NRC licensee ... and [Department of Energy] nuclear facilities ... suggest that whistleblower harassment and retaliation remain all too common in parts of the nuclear industry. H. Rep. No. 102-474(VIII), at 79 (1992), reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1953, 2282, 2297. These reforms, the House Report continues, are intended to address those remaining pockets of resistance. Id. 23 We turn to address the specifics of Harrison's demotion and transfer.
24 Under 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(3)(C), the burden of persuasion falls first upon Harrison to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that retaliation for his protected activity was a contributing factor in the decision to demote him. Harrison cannot satisfy this requirement through direct evidence. S&W did and said nothing that would indicate it sought to retaliate against Harrison by demoting him on February 2. Drywell manager Ehele did say that Harrison was eating him alive on man-hours. But Ehele's remark does not suggest a desire to suppress Harrison or his complaint. S&W argues that Ehele was talking about over-exposure to radioactivity; and even if Ehele meant wage costs, S&W was not forbidden to consider expenses in weighing safety concerns. That said, the circumstances do seem suspicious. A man starts complaining about fire safety. The next day he is demoted. The Secretary of Labor found that by a preponderance of the evidence, Harrison had made his showing. Reviewing for substantial evidence to support this finding, we affirm. 25 After hearing his ironworkers' grousing about firewatch, Harrison spoke to the TVA fire marshal, the drywell manager (Ehele) and ultimately to the NRC field representative. If an employee talks about safety to a plant fire official, an employer and an industry regulator, he or she acts squarely within the zone of conduct that Congress marked out under 42 U.S.C. § 5851(a)(1). S&W also knew of Harrison's contact with the TVA fire official and with Ehele (though not of Harrison's complaint with the NRC). By February 2, Harrison had told Ehele (his supervisor) of his TVA contact and Ehele obviously knew first-hand of the approach to him. S&W would have us believe that S&W officials thought Harrison was carping about labor issues, but we find this unlikely. Harrison's visit to the TVA fire marshal should have put at least Ehele on notice of Harrison's § 5851-shielded conduct. 26 So far the ALJ and the Secretary were in agreement. When they considered whether demotion was an adverse action, however, they parted ways. The ALJ decided that the demotion was not an adverse action because the demotion, in the ALJ's eyes, was not discriminatory. But discriminatory and adverse have distinct meanings. An adverse action is simply something unpleasant, detrimental, even unfortunate, but not necessarily (and not usually) discriminatory. The Secretary corrected this error and concluded that Harrison's demotion was an adverse action. 27 In determining whether Harrison met his burden under § 5851(b)(3)(C), we ask whether the Secretary properly inferred that retaliation against Harrison was more likely than not a contributing factor to his demotion. The Secretary said yes, for only one day separated Harrison's protected conduct from his demotion. Given this proximity in time and the circumstances as laid out above, we see no grounds for gainsaying the Secretary's inference of causation. 28 The burden thus shifted to S&W to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of such behavior. 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(3)(B). This is a high standard to begin with; and on review only for substantial evidence supporting the Secretary, S&W has a steep hill to climb. 29 S&W almost makes it. Its principal argument is to snap the temporal link that the Secretary infers. Five S&W managers offered unimpeached testimony that S&W decided to demote Harrison days before he raised any fire concerns. For in late January the field manager for all construction work at Browns Ferry, James Butts, had reviewed the roster of drywell employees. Butts surmised that the project was top-heavy: the ratio of foremen to ironworkers was 9:38, double the 1:8 ratio that S&W generally targets. On either January 27 or 29, Butts asked his subordinates, including Ehele, to review their rosters for top-heaviness. Ehele turned to his own subordinate managers (Tennyson, Sertway, and Fonte) for suggestions, but named no one himself. 30 Ehele's subordinates picked three foremen: Tommy Willis, Troy Faulks and Harrison (a lead foreman). The reasons for picking Harrison were manifold: Harrison supervised a lone foreman and crew; the work on his particular platform was drawing to its end; his seniority put him below the other lead foreman, Eugene Hannah. By Saturday, January 30, Ehele had informed field manager Butts of these three recommendations. 31 But it was not until Tuesday, February 2--after the questions of fire safety had arisen--that Harrison was actually informed of his demotion. This gap in time introduced the Secretary's critical doubt about S&W's motives. S&W responds reasonably enough that its managers had bigger matters on their minds than making sure Harrison's demotion was prompt. But another problem for S&W is that of the three recommendations for demotion, S&W acted only on Harrison. The other two, Willis and Faulks, had been slated for reduction to ironworker journeyman. Ehele's subordinates Tennyson and Sertway intervened on February 2, however, to persuade Ehele and Butts not to demote them, on the grounds that their work was too sophisticated for journeyman's pay. S&W points out that Harrison was only demoted to foreman at $2 less an hour and would oversee the same crew in the same location. Is it plausible that, if S&W wanted to squelch Harrison, it would have chosen such a mild and ineffective technique? S&W also says that it did not replace Harrison, which supports its contention that Harrison was demoted because of the roster review. 32 S&W's points are well-taken. We do not doubt that S&W had legitimate reasons for demoting Harrison. If the review were de novo, we might agree with S&W that it had met its burden of rebuttal. In our eyes, S&W might have demoted Harrison had he never uttered a word about fire safety to anyone. But it is not our task to make this judgment. Congress has charged us with a much more limited scope of review. Our task is to determine whether substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision. We agree with the Secretary that such evidence exists. We cannot say that it was unreasonable for the Secretary to hold that S&W had failed to rebut under § 5851(b)(3)(D).
33 The circumstances of Harrison's transfer out of the drywell are less muddled. On February 3--after his demotion--Harrison asked the remaining lead foreman, Eugene Hannah, to gather the members of Harrison's former ironworker crews. Harrison announced to the assembled workers that he had been demoted and that nothing had changed on the firewatch. The ironworkers then decided among themselves to refuse to work until S&W rectified the fire safety issue. Ehele came and mollified them enough to return to work, but later that same day S&W and the union agreed to return to the old firewatch procedure. Firewatch again became the laborers' responsibility. 34 The next day, Ehele sent job steward Morrow to fetch Harrison and send him to work outside the drywell. As we mentioned before, non-drywell work was ancillary, enjoyed less status and seems to have been less interesting. Morrow reported to Harrison that Ehele had compared Harrison to Moses at the Red Sea. 35 Here Harrison can build his case on direct evidence of S&W's animus. We do not understand Ehele to have underscored Harrison's moral courage. Rather, we think Ehele saw Harrison as a troublemaker, in Ehele's own words. The Secretary did not err in viewing retaliation as a probable contributing factor to Harrison's transfer out of sight and out of the drywell. 36 Against Harrison's evidence S&W offers little in rejoinder. Ehele mentions that Harrison had earlier requested a transfer to an outside crew. This is a plausible contention, as Harrison, now working as a journeyman, might prefer not to work alongside people he had just recently supervised. But S&W falls short of convincing us, as he failed to convince the ALJ or the Secretary, that S&W would have transferred Harrison had he never provoked trouble for S&W at the ironworkers' meeting. Substantial evidence upholds the Secretary's finding of retaliation. 37 Our conclusion leaves an assumption hanging. Section 5851 does not protect every act that an employee commits under the auspices of safety. Whistleblowing must occur through prescribed channels. Did Harrison's advising his co-workers of his fire worries constitute a protected activity under § 5851(a)? If not, the whistleblower provision would not avail Harrison, and S & W's retaliation would be permissible. We are unaware of any case law that guides our response to this particular question. We decide it afresh today. 38 Section 5851(a) lists six ways that an employee may act under its aegis. Listing only the three relevant provisions, an employee commits a protected activity if he: 39 (A) notified his employer of an alleged violation of this chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.... 40 (D) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under this chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any requirement imposed under this chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended [or] ...; 41 (F) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to carry out the purposes of this chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 We note as a starting point that Congress drafted subparagraph (F) in broad terms. The statute shields any employee who is about to assist or participate in any manner ... or in any other action to carry out the purposes of this chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 5851(a)(1)(F) (emphasis added). Purpose is an open-ended word. We presume that Congress used this word advisedly. In fact, when Congress revised § 5851 wholesale in 1992, it left this wording intact. See 42 U.S.C. § 5851(a)(3) (1991). 43 The Secretary of Labor argues that § 5851(a) is elastic enough to cover Harrison's speech to his co-workers. The Secretary administers § 5851, and we accord his or her interpretations due deference. English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 83 n. 6, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 2277 n. 6, 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990); Bechtel, 50 F.3d at 932. In Bechtel, this court acceded to the Secretary's contention that the pre-1992 version of § 5851 covered internal complaints made to supervisors and others, a position Congress ratified with the current statute's subparagraph (A). Id. at 932, 932 n. 1. As in Bechtel, we ask whether the Secretary's reading is a permissible reading of the statute. Id. at 932. 44 We do not need to adopt as broad a reading of the statute as the Secretary would wish, however. The facts of Harrison's transfer permit a less ambitious decision. Harrison's discussion with his fellow ironworkers was, in the context in which it occurred, an action to carry out the purposes of the Atomic Energy Act and Chapter 73 of Title 42 (Development of Energy Sources)--and to guarantee nuclear safety in particular. Harrison may very well have been wrong about the concrete dangers posed by the new firewatch scheme at Browns Ferry. We do not know. The important question, however, is not whether he was right, but whether he was acting in furtherance of safety compliance when he spoke to the co-workers. We conclude he was. The meeting with the ironworkers was included in a series of communications to employer representatives and to TVA officials. All of these complaints were, under the circumstances, mutually reinforcing. The meeting with the ironworkers reiterated publicly and in an emphatic way what Harrison had said in the earlier communications. As a practical matter, Harrison's statements at the meeting served as another notice to the employer. To exclude the meeting as a recognized effort at whistleblowing would seem artificial; to denude the meeting of its context would seem to strip it of its real content. In a context directly and immediately involving other communications that § 5851(a) explicitly recognizes as protected activity, the Secretary of Labor has permissibly construed § 5851(a) to include Harrison's meeting with his co-workers. 45 S&W retorts that this position ignores that Congress felt it necessary in 1992 to insert a particular sub-paragraph to cover internal complaints to employers. 42 U.S.C. § 5851(a)(1)(A). If Congress inserted a provision for speech to employers, why not for speech to fellow employees? Because, S&W says, Congress did not want to extend protection this far. S&W's interpretation is not implausible on its face. At the time of the 1992 amendments, several circuits had ruled that § 5851(a) encompassed complaints to employers. Bechtel, 50 F.3d at 931-32 (recounting history of case law). Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit had ruled the other way. Brown & Root, Inc. v. Donovan, 747 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir.1984). The legislative history of the 1992 Energy Policy Act, too, makes clear that Congress intended the amendments to codify what it thought the law to be already. Congress sought to explicitly provide whistleblower protection for nuclear industry employees [who] (1) notify their employer of an alleged violation rather than a federal regulator. H.R. No. 102-474(VIII), at 78, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1953, 2282, 2296 (emphasis added). In other words, Congress thought the statutory language broad enough already, but recognized that it required explication. 46 We recognize that the policy implications of the Secretary's construction may not be flawless. There may be some difficulty in distinguishing between offering a shield behind which some employees may incite trouble about a host of non-safety issues, including labor disputes, and one behind which well-intentioned employees may raise an alarm against safety hazards. But this is a balance for the Secretary of Labor to attempt to strike in the first instance. The only question is whether the Secretary's balance here, as we have cast it, is a permissible reading of the whistleblower provision. We think it is.