Peter Ohr v. Latino Express, Incorporated
776 F.3d 469
7th Cir.2015Background
- Employees Carol Garcia and Pedro Salgado were unlawfully discharged after organizing activity; the NLRB Regional Director sought interim relief under Section 10(j) to remedy alleged NLRA violations by Latino Express.
- District court entered a preliminary injunction (April 18, 2012) prohibiting interference with union activity and ordering reinstatement of Garcia and Salgado, posting of the order (with Spanish translation), and a sworn affidavit of compliance by set deadlines.
- Latino Express failed to comply by the April 30, 2012 deadlines: did not timely reinstate the employees, delayed and posted a defective Spanish translation, and waited more than a week to attempt compliance.
- Latino Express argued pending decertification and filed a motion to reconsider (invoking Rule 59) but did not obtain a stay; the court denied the motion and found the decertification argument irrelevant to injunction obligations.
- The district court held Latino Express in civil contempt, ordered compensatory remedies (backpay, costs, attorneys’ fees) and some coercive relief; Latino Express appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ohr/Director) | Defendant's Argument (Latino Express) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt was proven | Director: Latino Express willfully failed to obey clear injunction provisions (reinstatement, posting, affidavit). | Latino Express: substantially complied or had defenses (pending decertification) and filed reconsideration. | Held: Contempt proven — order unambiguous, violated, not substantially complied with, no reasonable diligent effort to comply. |
| Whether filing motion to reconsider (Rule 59) tolled compliance | Director: filing alone does not excuse noncompliance absent a court-granted stay. | Latino Express: Rule 59 motion excused/delayed obligation to comply. | Held: Rule 59 does not stay obligations automatically; no stay granted; argument rejected. |
| Whether contempt relief is moot after underlying injunction expires | Director: contempt can be compensatory and survive expiration. | Latino Express: preliminary injunction expired with NLRB decision so contempt is moot. | Held: Contempt partly compensatory; compensatory relief (backpay, fees) survives; coercive fines abate with injunction. |
| Whether Director entitled to fees/costs | Director: respondent’s willful disregard justifies attorney fees and costs. | Latino Express: should not be liable for full costs because compliance later addressed some obligations. | Held: District court within discretion to award fees/costs; amount to be determined by district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockowicz v. Williams, 630 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing civil contempt findings)
- Harrell ex rel. NLRB v. Am. Red Cross, Heart of Am. Blood Servs. Region, 714 F.3d 553 (7th Cir.) (framework for §10(j) injunctive relief)
- Lineback ex rel. NLRB v. Irving Ready–Mix, Inc., 653 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2011) (purpose of §10(j) to preserve Board remedies during delays)
- U.S. v. Slaughter, 900 F.2d 1119 (7th Cir. 1990) (distinction between coercive and compensatory civil contempt)
- Petroleos Mexicanos v. Crawford Enter., Inc., 826 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1987) (termination of underlying proceeding moots coercive contempt but not compensatory contempt)
- Anderson v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 759 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for Rule 59 relief: manifest error or newly discovered evidence)