Marshall v. Springville Poultry Farm, Inc., Civ. No. 77-296.
| Decision Date | 16 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 77-296. |
| Citation | 445 F. Supp. 2 |
| Parties | Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. SPRINGVILLE POULTRY FARM, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Sal Cognetti, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., for plaintiff.
Morey M. Myers, Robert J. Nolan, Scranton, Pa., for defendant.
The Secretary of Labor has instituted this action pursuant to Section 11(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 660(c), on behalf of three of defendant's former employees1 whom it alleges were fired for having filed complaints with their employer concerning occupational safety. Presently before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that the allegations of the complaint do not state a claim under § 660(c).
Title 29 U.S.C. 660(c)(1) reads as follows:
"No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this chapter."
The Secretary has interpreted this provision to include complaints filed by an employee with an employer, see 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9(c) and has filed this action on that basis.
Defendant contends that the Secretary's interpretation of § 660(c)(1) constitutes an unwarranted extension of the Act. Basically it argues that § 660(c)(1) should be read to prohibit discrimination based on the filing of only those complaints provided for in the Act and since the Act does not provide for the filing of complaints with an employer, the allegation that individuals were fired for filing such a complaint does not state a claim under this section. The Court does not agree with defendant's interpretation of the statute for two reasons: First, the construction that defendant advances would be contrary to a normal reading of the statute which requires that the complaint be under or related to the Act. Had the drafters of the statute intended to limit § 660(c)(1) in the manner that defendant suggests, they would have omitted the phrase "under or related to this chapter" and included the words "provided for in the Act" or words of similar import.
Second, the interpretation suggested by defendant would be contrary to the rules of statutory construction. Ordinary qualifying phrases are to be applied only to the words or phrases immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to others more remote. This rule of the last antecedent clearly precludes the conclusion that the phrase "afforded by this chapter" in line 10 of § 660(c)(1) modifies and limits the word "complaint" in line 4. It is true that the rule of the last antecedent does not apply where context indicates otherwise, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Stroh Brewery Co.
...id.; Donovan v. R.D. Andersen Const. Co., Inc., 552 F.Supp. 249, 251, 66 A.L.R. Fed. 644, 647 (D.Kan.1982); Marshall v. Springville Poultry Farm, Inc., 445 F.Supp. 2, 3 (M.D.Pa.1977). North Carolina has received approval from the federal government to administer its own occupational safety ......
-
Donovan v. Peter Zimmer America, Inc., Civ. A. No. 78-1010-0.
...activities for which an employee cannot be discharged or discriminated against by his employer. See Marshall v. Springville Poultry Farm, Inc., 445 F.Supp. 2 (M.D.Pa. 1977); Marshall v. Commonwealth Aquarium, 469 F.Supp. 690 (D.Mass.1979), aff'd. 611 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1979); Marshall v. P & Z......
-
Kilpatrick v. Delaware County Soc.
...who allege that they were discharged for complaining to their employers about occupational hazards. See Marshall v. Springville Poultry Farm, Inc., 445 F.Supp. 2 (M.D.Pa.1977). If Kilpatrick had filed a complaint with OSHA alleging that she had been terminated for complaining to her employe......
-
Estill Cnty. Fiscal Court v. Commonwealth
...view that Estill County could not discriminate against Smith for writing a letter to Taylor, citing Marshall v. Springville Poultry Farm, Inc., 445 F. Supp. 2, 3 (M.D. Pa. 1977). As with Chao - the case cited by the Tribunal and its hearing officer - Marshall also relied on 29 C.F.R. § 1977......