Hopkins County Coal, LLC v. Acosta
875 F.3d 279
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Employee Robert Gatlin filed a discrimination complaint with MSHA after termination for alleged insubordination; MSHA interviewed him and investigator Smith believed Gatlin may have engaged in safety‑related protected activity.
- MSHA requested six document categories from Hopkins County Coal (HCC), including Gatlin’s personnel file and personnel files of five‑year comparators; HCC refused to produce two sets of files.
- On a March 23, 2009 site visit, MSHA investigators insisted on inspection; HCC refused, leading Inspector Smith to issue a citation under §103 and a withdrawal order under §104(b); HCC contested and later produced the files, ending daily fines.
- An ALJ and the Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission upheld the citations and the Secretary’s authority to demand records under §103(h), and rejected HCC’s Fourth Amendment claim.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: (1) §103(h) authorizes requests for records not otherwise required by the Mine Act if “reasonably required”; (2) MSHA need not disclose the detailed protected‑activity allegation to the operator pre‑inspection; and (3) the warrantless inspection was reasonable under Fourth Amendment precedent for pervasively regulated industries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §103(h) authorizes MSHA to demand personnel files not statutorily required | HCC: §103(h) does not let MSHA compel non‑statutorily required private personnel files | Secretary: §103(h) requires operators to provide records beyond those statutorily mandated if reasonably required | Held: §103(h) unambiguously authorizes such requests when "reasonably required" to perform MSHA functions |
| Whether MSHA must identify a protected activity to the operator before requesting records | HCC: operator must know the alleged protected activity as prerequisite to producing documents | Secretary: no pre‑production pleading burden; minimal notice in forwarding complaint suffices | Held: No such precondition; MSHA gave sufficient notice and had a reasonable basis (investigator’s interview) to believe protected activity occurred |
| Whether the requested files were "reasonably required" for a discrimination investigation | HCC: requests were overbroad, fishing expedition, not relevant to prima facie elements | Secretary: files (Gatlin’s and comparators’) are relevant to credibility and disparate‑treatment analysis | Held: Files were reasonably required—relevant to elements (protected activity, adverse action, causation) and limited in scope/time |
| Whether the warrantless demand violated the Fourth Amendment | HCC: compelled production of private records without sufficient statutory notice or protection violated Fourth Amendment | Secretary: coal mining is pervasively regulated; Donovan/Burger framework permits warrantless administrative inspections when regulated scheme substitutes for a warrant | Held: Inspection reasonable under pervasively regulated‑industry precedent; statute and notice limited scope and officer discretion, so no Fourth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (Supreme Court) (upholding warrantless Mine Act inspections in pervasively regulated coal mining industry)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (Supreme Court) (framework for warrantless administrative searches in closely regulated industries)
- United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (Supreme Court) (administrative inspections in regulated industries may be reasonable without a warrant)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (Supreme Court) (review mechanisms for MSHA penalty assessments and administrative scheme reviewability)
- Pendley v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission, 601 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Commission factual findings)
- McLaughlin v. Kings Island, 849 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1988) (invalidating an OSHA regulation permitting presumptive warrantless record demands; distinguished on facts here)