Filed: Nov. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a1177n.06 No. 11-3965 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Nov 14, 2012 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ROBERT W. REAMER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM A FINAL ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW LABOR, et al., ) BOARD ) Respondents. ) ) Before: MARTIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; ECONOMUS, District Judge.* PER CURIAM. Robert W. Reamer, a pro se Michigan resident, petitions for
Summary: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a1177n.06 No. 11-3965 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Nov 14, 2012 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ROBERT W. REAMER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM A FINAL ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW LABOR, et al., ) BOARD ) Respondents. ) ) Before: MARTIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; ECONOMUS, District Judge.* PER CURIAM. Robert W. Reamer, a pro se Michigan resident, petitions for ..
More
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a1177n.06
No. 11-3965
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Nov 14, 2012
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ROBERT W. REAMER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
) FROM A FINAL ORDER OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
LABOR, et al., ) BOARD
)
Respondents. )
)
Before: MARTIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; ECONOMUS, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Robert W. Reamer, a pro se Michigan resident, petitions for review of a
final order of the United States Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board affirming an
administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision granting summary judgment in favor of Ford Motor
Company (Ford), Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford Credit), and twelve individuals.
In March 2008, Reamer filed a complaint with the Department of Labor’s Occupational
Safety and Health Administration alleging that the respondents violated the whistleblower-protection
provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, by harassing him and terminating
his employment in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Reamer alleged that, in March and
May 2006, he filed complaints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), asserting that Ford
*
The Honorable Peter C. Economus, United States Senior District Judge for the Northern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
No. 11-3965
-2-
officials had encouraged the FBI to investigate a dealership for fraud, and the FBI had pursued the
investigation despite being told by Reamer, a supervisor with Ford Credit’s Dealer Field Credit
Department, that no fraud occurred. In May 2006, Reamer also sent e-mails to (1) his supervisor,
and (2) William Clay Ford, Jr. and Ford’s Board of Directors, stating that he had received a
threatening telephone call that might have been made by a Ford employee. He also complained
about the initiation of the FBI investigation despite his statements that no fraud had occurred.
Reamer was discharged from his employment with Ford Credit in 2008, after a subordinate filed a
sexual-harassment complaint against him.
The Secretary of Labor dismissed Reamer’s complaint, finding that Reamer’s protected
activity was not a contributing factor in his discharge. Reamer then requested a hearing before an
ALJ. Prior to the hearing, the ALJ granted a motion for summary judgment filed by the respondents,
finding that Reamer failed to establish that the complaints he submitted to the FBI and Ford officials
constituted protected activity. Reamer appealed the ALJ’s order to the Board. The Board affirmed
the grant of summary judgment in the respondents’ favor, agreeing with the ALJ’s determination that
Reamer “failed to generate a genuine issue of material fact that he engaged in protected activity
under [Sarbanes-Oxley].” The Board noted that, “[f]rom March through July 2006, Reamer made
several communications to supervisors at Ford and to the FBI,” but he never stated in these
complaints that he had evidence of fraud. In fact, the purpose of Reamer’s communications was to
inform the FBI and company officials that no fraud had occurred.
On appeal, Reamer argues that: 1) internal complaints that he filed on May 1, 2006, and May
3, 2006, constituted whistleblower complaints under section 1514A; 2) the Board erred in focusing
solely on the complaints that he filed with the FBI, which, he now concedes, do not constitute
protected conduct; 3) the Board violated his due process rights because its decision was arbitrary and
capricious; and 4) his protected activity was a contributing factor in his discharge. We will
set aside the Board’s order if it is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary and capricious,
No. 11-3965
-3-
an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706; Sasse v. U.S.
Dep’t of Labor,
409 F.3d 773, 778 (6th Cir. 2005).
In relevant part, section 1514A provides that publicly traded companies may not discharge
an employee
because of any lawful act done by the employee . . . to provide information, cause
information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any
conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section
1341 [mail fraud], 1343 [wire fraud], 1344 [bank fraud], or 1348 [securities fraud],
any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision
of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information . . . is
provided to . . . a person with supervisory authority over the employee . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1). To state a claim under this provision, a plaintiff must show that: 1) he
engaged in conduct that section 1514A protects; 2) the employer knew or suspected that the plaintiff
engaged in protected conduct; 3) the plaintiff suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and 4) the
circumstances were sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was a contributing
factor in the adverse personnel action. 29 C.F.R. § 1980.104(e)(2).
The Board did not commit reversible error. We note that the Board did not focus solely on
Reamer’s complaints to the FBI, but instead evaluated the content of all communications that
Reamer made to both the FBI and Ford officials from March 2006 through July 2006. Reamer now
contends that his protected conduct consisted solely of a May 1, 2006, e-mail to his boss, Tom
Schneider; and a May 3, 2006, e-mail to William Clay Ford, Jr.
The May 1, 2006, e-mail relayed concerns about a threatening telephone call that Reamer had
received; an internal investigation into his relationship with a female employee; and his concern that
the FBI was conducting a frivolous fraud investigation of a dealership. Because this e-mail neither
stated nor suggested that Ford had committed fraud or violated securities laws, it did not constitute
protected conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1). The May 3, 2006, e-mail to Ford raised the same
concerns as the May 1, 2006, e-mail and asked Ford and the Board of Directors to investigate “the
No. 11-3965
-4-
possibility that illegal acts may have been committed by employees of Ford Credit and Ford Motor
Company.” This reference to illegal acts appears to relate to the threatening telephone call that
Reamer received and the initiation of the FBI investigation. These acts do not violate or relate to
section 1514A. Therefore, the Board properly concluded that this e-mail also did not qualify as
protected conduct under section 1514A. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1). Because the Board properly
applied the law to the facts in affirming the ALJ’s decision, the Board’s decision is not arbitrary or
capricious.
The petition for review is denied.