Stone & Webster Construction, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor
684 F.3d 1127
11th Cir.2012Background
- Speegle worked as a journeyman painter, later foreman, at TVA Browns Ferry during 2003–2004 on the Unit 1 Restart Project in the Torus.
- In May 2004 S&W revised G-55 to certify apprentices (coating applicators) to work in the Torus, contrary to Speegle’s belief that only journeymen should paint there for safety.
- Speegle raised safety concerns about apprentice painters and TVA regulatory changes, prompting ongoing discussions with supervisors Childers and Gero.
- After Speegle spoke loudly at a safety meeting, management considered discipline; Gero ultimately terminated him for insubordination two days after reviewing statements.
- Two other S&W employees, Jones and Chiodo, were also terminated for insubordination but after warnings, limiting direct comparability to Speegle.
- AR/ARB reversed the ALJ, finding pretext and disparate treatment, leading to damages proceedings; S&W sought review in this court and Speegle intervened.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARB’s substantial evidence standard review | S&W argues ARB failed to review RDO for substantial evidence. | Speegle contends ARB properly reviewed and found pretext and disparate treatment. | ARB erred; remand required for substantial-evidence review. |
| Shifting explanations for termination | ALJ’s finding of consistent reason (insubordination) should be upheld; no shifting rationale. | ARB found shifting explanations showing pretext. | ARB erred; ALJ’s substantial-evidence-supported finding upheld; shifting explanations not proven. |
| Disparate treatment and proper comparators | Speegle was treated differently from similarly situated employees who engaged in comparable conduct. | Jones and Chiodo were adequate comparators under Anderson and similar misconduct. | ARB erred in treating Jones and Chiodo as comparators; Speegle not similarly situated. |
| Honest-belief defense for misconduct | ARb failed to credit supervisor honesty belief that Speegle’s comment violated policy. | Employer’s honest belief about misconduct can sustain action despite alleged pretext. | ARB erred in discrediting Gero’s testimony about interpretation of Speegle’s comment. |
| Remand vs reinstate or RDO reinstatement | Remand appropriate to address unresolved arguments and substantial-evidence issues. | Remand necessary to review RDO consistent with law. | Remand to ARB affirmed; not reinstate ALJ’s RDO in full. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bechtel Constr. Co. v. Sec’y of Labor, 50 F.3d 926 (11th Cir. 1995) (requires causal inference proof in ERA actions)
- Dysert v. U.S. Sec’y of Labor, 105 F.3d 607 (11th Cir. 1997) (preponderance standard in ERA proceedings)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard description)
- Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (similarly situated comparator in discrimination analysis)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cnty., Fla., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (nearly identical standard for comparators; disciplining conduct)
- Anderson v. WBMG-42, 253 F.3d 561 (11th Cir. 2001) (comparator misconduct need not be identical (circuit precedent))
- Silvera v. Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd., 244 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2001) (nearly identical standard for comparators in Title VII)
- Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F.2d 1466 (11th Cir. 1991) (honest-belief defense for employer’s misconduct)
- Jones v. Gerwens, 874 F.2d 1534 (11th Cir. 1989) (honest belief and business decision limits)