Bechtel v. Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor
710 F.3d 443
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Bechtel served as VP of technology commercialization at CTI, a financially troubled public company, hired Feb 2001.
- Bechtel and CTI president Nano clashed over disclosure and Act compliance after Nano joined in 2002.
- Bechtel raised concerns about CTI's finances and Act disclosures; he refused to sign certain disclosure forms.
- CTI discharged Bechtel on June 30, 2003 amid ongoing financial deterioration; Bechtel filed a SOX whistleblower complaint with OSHA in Sep 2003.
- OSHA found reasonable cause in Feb 2005; ALJ denied Bechtel relief on remand after ARB remanded in 2008; ALJ dismissal reaffirmed Jan 2009.
- ARB affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal on Sept 30, 2011; Bechtel petitioned for review in the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden-shifting framework under §1514A | Bechtel argues four-part prima facie burden with preponderance applies, then clear and convincing for a same-action defense. | CTI contends the ALJ erred by adopting an improper framework, potentially allowing pretext analysis. | Correct four-part framework with CC standard; pretext evidence governs after prima facie showing. |
| Harmless-error analysis of ALJ's standard | ALJ applied erroneous burden-shifting framework on remand. | ARB properly found Bechtel failed to prove contributing factor; any error harmless. | ARB did not act arbitrarily; error deemed harmless; no remand required. |
| Proof by inference vs preponderance | Bechtel urged proving protected activity contributed via inferences. | ALJ’s use of inference was a response to prior error, not a misapplication. | No reversible error; inference-based reasoning did not undermine the proper standard. |
| Review of post-employment blacklisting claim | Letters show amendment of complaint; ARB erred in not considering. | Letters were not in the administrative record; no amendment properly before court. | ARBs' treatment affirmed; petition denied on this issue due to lack of record amendment. |
| Evidentiary rulings on discovery and judicial notice | ARB should reverse ALJ's denial of discovery and take official notice of related proceedings. | Rulings were within discretion and supported by record. | No reversible error; ARB's evidentiary rulings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (U.S. 2011) (reasonableness review under APA; rule-of-law principles)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2007) (agency action review; standard of review under APA)
- Harp v. Charter Communications, Inc., 558 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2009) (defining burdens of proof under §1514A framework)
- Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008) (applies four-part framework for whistleblower claims)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (U.S. 2009) (harmless-error principle in agency review)