Acosta v. Eastern Awning Sys, Inc, 3:15-cv-01692

Background

Eastern Awning Systems, Inc. and its president Stephen Lukos are sued by the Secretary of Labor under 29 U.S.C. § 660(c) for retaliatory discharge of employees Mary DeLeon and Francis Espinal after they reported unsafe conditions in a powder coat room in June 2009.
DeLeon and Espinal became ill at work June 15, 2009; DeLeon filed an OSHA complaint June 19, 2009; OSHA notified Defendants of the complaints by early October 2009 and repeatedly communicated with Defendants over ensuing years.
DeLeon returned to work June 24 and worked through August 24 with some absences; on August 26 she was refused work until she produced documentation for prior absences and was told she might have to sign a warning; she ultimately left and pursued claims.
Espinal did not work from June 16 until on or about August 26, 2009; Defendants sent a letter (returned undeliverable) instructing him to return August 31 but he alleges he was denied reinstatement and could not reach Lukos.
OSHA and Defendants engaged in settlement discussions and investigation over several years; the Secretary filed suit in November 2015, roughly six years after the events.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of laches/delay defense for government OSHA §11(c) suits	Secretary: laches/statute of limitations should not bar suit because government enforcement vindicates public interest; but court may limit relief if delay prejudiced defendants	Defendants: six-year delay is unreasonable and bars relief via laches/undue delay defense	Court: Government suits are not bound by state limitations, but courts may limit relief for unreasonable, prejudicial delay; laches-type defense available to limit relief in discretion
Whether Secretary’s six-year delay was unreasonable/inexcusable	Secretary: OSHA repeatedly notified and investigated; delays were due in part to ongoing settlement talks and agency processes	Defendants: six-year delay was inordinate and prejudicial; missing witness materials harm defense	Held: Genuine disputes of material fact exist; timeline and communications create factual issues as to reasonableness and prejudice, so summary judgment denied on delay defense
Prima facie retaliation (adverse action) for Espinal	Secretary: Espinal was effectively terminated/denied reinstatement after protected OSHA report	Defendants: Espinal was not terminated; was told to return and later offered reinstatement	Held: Facts raise triable issue—denial to allow immediate return, repeated unavailability of Lukos, and later reinstatement only after OSHA notice support adverse-action inference
Prima facie retaliation (adverse action) for DeLeon and pretext	Secretary: DeLeon was effectively terminated or subject to selective enforcement after reporting; attendance justification is pretextual	Defendants: Discipline based on absenteeism/absence documentation; not retaliatory	Held: Triable issues exist—close temporal proximity, Lukos’ disparaging remarks, inconsistent enforcement of absence policy, and other facts permit a jury to find causation and pretext

Key Cases Cited

Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (summary judgment requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party’s burden on summary judgment)
Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California v. E.E.O.C., 432 U.S. 355 (1977) (courts may limit relief for agency delay when defendant prejudiced)
Donovan v. Square D Co., 709 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1983) (no limitations period applied to OSHA §11(c) suit by Secretary but district courts may limit relief for prejudice from delay)
Marshall v. Intermountain Elec. Co., 614 F.2d 260 (10th Cir. 1980) (same principle for OSHA enforcement actions)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting test for retaliation claims)
Ivani Contracting Corp. v. City of New York, 103 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 1997) (laches standard: inexcusable delay and prejudice)