Harley Marine Services, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor
677 F. App'x 538
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Joseph Dady, a Harley Marine tug captain, was asleep off-watch when his mate caused an allision with a barge on Oct. 12, 2010; crew failed to timely report the incident to Dady or Harley.
- Dady later discovered the allision when the barge took on water, followed proper procedures, and saved the barge.
- Harley investigated, blamed Dady for the crew's failure to report, and terminated him.
- Dady filed a whistleblower complaint under the Seaman’s Protection Act (SPA); an ALJ found Harley violated the SPA and ordered reinstatement; the ARB affirmed; Harley sought review.
- Harley had previously stipulated at the ALJ level that Dady engaged in protected activity (reports about sewage discharge, steering failure, QM issues, and inadequate crewing/lookout), but later attempted to limit that stipulation on appeal.
- The Secretary/ALJ found (1) Harley knew of Dady’s protected activity, (2) protected activity contributed to the termination, and (3) Harley failed by clear and convincing evidence to show it would have fired Dady absent the protected activity; reinstatement was ordered as the presumptive remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dady) | Defendant's Argument (Harley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence shows Harley knew of Dady’s protected activity | Dady argued his repeated internal reports, Coast Guard filings, and media contacts put Harley on notice of his protected complaints | Harley contended it did not have knowledge of the specific protected acts and tried to rescind or narrow its stipulation | Held: Substantial evidence supports that Harley knew of Dady’s protected reporting and propensity to report safety/crewing issues |
| Whether protected activity contributed to termination | Dady argued management animus from his reporting (internal and media) made protected activity a contributing factor | Harley argued the allision investigation and termination were for legitimate safety/disciplinary reasons unrelated to protected activity | Held: Substantial evidence supports that protected activity was a contributing factor (management had expressed desire to fire him after media contacts) |
| Whether Harley proved by clear and convincing evidence it would have fired Dady regardless | Dady argued Harley’s investigation and comparators did not show an independent, inevitable firing | Harley relied on its investigation, company manual, and another captain’s termination as comparable | Held: Harley failed to meet the clear-and-convincing burden; manual ambiguous and comparator distinguishable (other captain lied and caused collision) |
| Appropriateness of reinstatement remedy | Dady sought reinstatement (or front pay) and argued reinstatement is presumptive under relevant regulations | Harley argued reinstatement was not appropriate and raised waiver and due-process objections | Held: Reinstatement is presumptive and Harley did not overcome that presumption; waiver and due-process claims rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone & Webster Const., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 684 F.3d 1127 (11th Cir. 2012) (establishes de novo review of legal conclusions and substantial-evidence review of agency factual findings)
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 140 F.3d 1392 (11th Cir. 1998) (discusses substantial-evidence standard as application of arbitrary-and-capricious review)
- Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 745 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (on the distinct function of paragraph (E) requiring substantial evidence in closed-record proceedings)
- Md. People’s Counsel v. FERC, 761 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (quoted regarding application of substantial-evidence standard)