Chandler v. Long Falls Paperboard, LLC, 2:23-cv-00206

Charles Chandler sued Long Falls Paperboard LLC, his former employer, for alleged illegal retaliation in violation of Vermont’s Occupational Safety and Health Act (VOSHA).
Chandler claims he observed and reported numerous hazardous conditions at Long Falls’ Brattleboro facility, including unlicensed workers, improper repairs, and unsafe use of equipment.
Chandler alleges that he complained about these hazards to both management and VOSHA, and that managers rebuffed his warnings.
He asserts that he was fired in April 2023 shortly after a final complaint to management, constituting retaliation for his protected activity.
The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, challenging whether Chandler sufficiently pled a VOSHA retaliation claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of protected activity allegation	Chandler reported specific unsafe conditions and complained to management and VOSHA.	Allegations lack detail on nature, recipients, and timing of complaints; thus, no protected activity.	Chandler pled enough specifics about hazards and complaints to state a plausible protected activity claim.
Employer's awareness of protected activity	Complaints were made directly to identifiable managers.	No adequate allegation Long Falls knew of complaints, especially to VOSHA.	Complaints to multiple managers, including the plant manager, suffice for corporate knowledge.
Private right of action under VOSHA for unsafe conditions	Seeks damages for retaliation, not for underlying safety violations.	No private action for VOSHA safety violations alone.	Chandler states a claim for retaliation, not for direct safety violations.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: complaints must include factual allegations supporting legal conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must include facts that make claim plausible)
Gordon v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff may rely on general corporate knowledge to satisfy employer awareness in prima facie retaliation case)
Reed v. A.W. Lawrence & Co., Inc., 95 F.3d 1170 (2d Cir. 1996) (management’s knowledge of a complaint may be imputed to the corporation for retaliation claims)
Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (general corporate knowledge standard suffices for employer awareness in retaliation claims)