Thomas Perez v. Ohio Bell Telephone
655 F. App'x 404
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- OSHA (Secretary of Labor) sued Ohio Bell under §11(c)(1) of the OSH Act on behalf of 13 employees who alleged discipline for reporting workplace injuries (written warnings and short unpaid suspensions).
- OSHA concluded Ohio Bell violated §11(c) after investigating; Secretary sought back pay, expungement of discipline, and a permanent injunction forbidding future §11(c) violations.
- After suit, Ohio Bell reimbursed lost wages, removed discipline records, and revised safety/discipline policies in coordination with OSHA.
- Ohio Bell moved for summary judgment arguing the case was moot (voluntary remediation) and, alternatively, that the requested injunction was an overbroad "obey-the-law" injunction incompatible with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
- The district court granted summary judgment: it found the case moot, held the requested injunction overbroad, and said injunctive relief was not warranted; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on the overbreadth/Rule 56 basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after voluntary remediation | Secretary: case not moot; ongoing risk of §11(c) violations persists (OSHA continued to receive complaints). | Ohio Bell: reimbursed wages and expunged records; policy changes render requested relief moot. | Court: dismissal proper — tangible remedies satisfied and injunction denied; case dismissed (affirmed). |
| Legality of broad "obey-the-law" injunction | Secretary: requested permanent injunction barring any §11(c) violations; argued Rule 65 is not a pleading requirement. | Ohio Bell: injunction is overbroad; Rule 65(d) prohibits vague/blanket orders; injunction should be narrowed or denied. | Court: injunction that merely commands compliance with the law is overbroad under Rule 65(d) and equity principles; denial affirmed. |
| Burden on non-movant when injunction challenged on summary judgment | Secretary: a pleading for injunctive relief need not satisfy Rule 56 at motion stage. | Ohio Bell: challenging injunction on summary judgment requires Secretary to produce facts supporting broad relief. | Court: when an injunction request is challenged on summary judgment, the non-movant must supply factual support or propose narrower terms; Secretary failed to do so. |
| Voluntary-cessation doctrine allocation of burden | Secretary/dissent: Ohio Bell must show wrongful conduct cannot reasonably recur. | Majority/concurrence: Secretary needed to show facts justifying broad prospective relief when challenged. | Held: Majority affirmed on Rule 56/overbreadth grounds without fully resolving the burden-shifting mootness dispute; concurrence agrees; dissent would reverse on mootness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (explaining courts must avoid sweeping "obey the law" injunctions and give clear notice of forbidden acts)
- N.L.R.B. v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U.S. 426 (invalidating blanket injunction prohibiting all future statute violations unrelated to proven misconduct)
- Int'l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64 (warning against vague decrees that could found contempt)
- Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473 (Rule 65(d) prevents injunctions that are too uncertain to be understood)
- Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal, 89 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.) (Rule 65 requires injunctions more specific than command to obey law)
- McLendon v. Cont’l Can Co., 908 F.2d 1171 (3d Cir.) (vacating broad "obey the law" injunction)
- Davis v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co., 803 F.2d 1322 (4th Cir.) (rejecting injunction that simply directed defendant to obey statute)
- Jake’s, Ltd., Inc. v. City of Coates, 356 F.3d 896 (8th Cir.) (command to obey law held overbroad under equitable principles)
- E.E.O.C. v. AutoZone, Inc., 707 F.3d 824 (7th Cir.) (expressing concerns about injunctions that only order obedience to law; outlining circumstances they may be justified)
- F.T.C. v. EDebitPay, LLC, 695 F.3d 938 (9th Cir.) (analyzing scope and appropriateness of injunctions enforcing statutory prohibitions)
- E.E.O.C. v. Wooster Brush Co. Employees Relief Ass’n, 727 F.2d 566 (6th Cir.) (vacating overly broad injunction and instructing tailoring to proven unlawful conduct)