Pizzella v. Susquehanna Nuclear LLC, 3:17-CV-01752
| Decision Date | 16 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3:17-CV-01752,3:17-CV-01752 |
| Parties | PATRICK PIZZELLA, ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff, v. SUSQUEHANNA NUCLEAR LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
Presently before me is Defendant Susquehanna Nuclear LLC's ("Susquehanna" or "Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) on Plaintiff Patrick Pizzella's, Acting Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor,1 ("Secretary" or "Plaintiff") claims of retaliation in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. ("the Act"). Specifically, the Secretary contends that Susquehanna retaliated against two former employees, Matthew Mensch ("Mencsh") and Vilas Shook ("Shook"), in violation of section 660(c)(2) of the Act, for their reporting of a workplace injury. Because employees Mensch and Shook (collectively "the employees") have produced sufficient evidence that they suffered adverse employment actions as a result of engaging in the protected activity of reporting workplace injuries, the Secretary establishes a prima facie case of retaliation. The Motion will therefore be denied.
Defendant Susquehanna operates a nuclear power plant in Salem Township,Luzerne County, Pennsylvania ("the plant"). (Doc. 1 (Plaintiff's Complaint) and Doc. 7 (Defendant's Answer) at ¶ 8). The plant has a security team composed of "a Manager of Nuclear Security, an operations supervisor, shift commanders, shift supervisors and other management personnel in addition to more than 100 security officers." (Doc. 23-2 (Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts) and Doc. 30 (Plaintiff's Counterstatement of Undisputed Material Facts) at ¶ 2). At all relevant times for the purposes of this action, Mensch and Shook were employed by the plant as a security officer and shift commander, respectively. (Doc.1 and Doc 7 at ¶¶ 6-7; Doc. 23-2 and Doc. 30 at ¶¶ 4, 10).
On October 2, 2016, Mensch was working alone in Ready Room One at the plant when he sustained a shoulder injury resulting from an incident with his rolling chair. (Doc. 23-2 and Doc. 30 at ¶¶ 5-9). Mensch subsequently reported his injury to shift commander Shook, and shift supervisor Bradley Smith ("Smith") was instructed by fellow shift supervisor Justin Czech ("Czech") to conduct a "walk-down" of the room. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 17). Mensch suffered a "serious and permanent" injury to his shoulder from this incident that made him unable to work. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 46). Within 36 hours of a "human performance event" where an error could have occurred, such as this event, Susquehanna conducts a "Prompt Investigation" and evaluates whether or not "human performance errors" were a contributing factor to the event and thus could be prevented in the future. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-15).
The "Prompt Investigation" of this incident was kicked off by Smith's "walk down" of Ready Room One, wherein Smith tried to recreate the incident by wheeling himself across the room and testing the conditions under which the chair, and the person sitting in it, would fall. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 17, 19-20). Smith successfully recreated the way the chair would fall out from under its occupant. (Id. at ¶ 20). Shook reported the incident to Manager of Nuclear Security Brian Martonick ("Martonick"), who, as a result of Smith's findings, directed thesecurity team to remove the specific chair involved from circulation. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-25). It was determined that, at minimum, the chair had a defect pertaining to gun belts getting caught on the armrests, making it difficult for officers to get out of the chair. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-25). Other steps in the "Prompt Investigation" included speaking to Mensch, administering first-aid treatment, and evaluating Mensch for the use of drugs or for impairment caused by fatigue. (Id. at ¶¶ 26-30).
The "Prompt Investigation Report," as completed by Czech, "initially concluded that the injury to the employee resulted from 'human performance error' . . . and 'unexpected equipment conditions.'" (Id. at ¶¶ 31-32). The report concluded that the chair was "not appropriate" for use and that it was at least partially Mensch's fault for causing the injury based on the way he was sitting on the chair. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-34). This report was then sent to the "Management Review Committee," ("MRC") which is comprised of a variety of plant employees who take or do not take plant-wide action in response to these reports. (Id. at ¶¶ 35-37). The MRC "objected to the team's suggestion that the chair caused the incident," and, in conference with Czech, the references to the chair being defective were removed from the report with the cause revised to solely be a "human performance error" by Mensch. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-43).
In line with the result of the investigation being deemed a human performance error resulting in a "lost-time injury," the plant's human performance clock was reset. (Id. at ¶¶ 47, 51, 56-57). The human performance clock is an instrument which indicates to the employees how many days have elapsed since a human performance error has occurred. (Id. at ¶ 48-50). Susquehanna resets this clock when certain human performance errors occur. (Id. at ¶¶ 47, 51-53, 55). Susquehanna subsequently communicates the specific error to the employees with the aim to prevent employees from committing the same error in the future. (Id. at ¶ 50). There are different levels of clock resets that occur ranging froma single crew clock reset to a plant-wide site clock reset depending on what is appropriate in light of the specific error. (Id. at ¶¶ 49, 51-52).
Moreover, the plant pays non-collective bargaining agreement employees, like Mensch and Shook, bonuses on top of their typical compensation for good performance. (Id. at ¶¶ 59A-61A).2 Each employee is given a bonus based on an individual appraisal with the appraisals in this case conducted by Martonick. (Id. at ¶ 61B). As a result of the injury occurring, Martonick recommended that Mensch and Shook receive reduced bonuses. (Id. at ¶¶ 64-66). General manager of nuclear programs, Tom Iliadis ("Iliadis"), and Plant manager Bob Franssen approved this reduction. (Id. at ¶¶ 67-68). The employees were informed of this reduction in December, 2016. (Doc. 30 and Doc. 32 (Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Undisputed Material Facts) at ¶ 79).
On January 4, 2017, Shook proceeded to file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") as a result of the foregoing events. (Doc.1 and Doc. 7 at ¶ 16). OSHA then proceeded to investigate the employees' complaint. (Id. at ¶ 18). The Secretary filed this action against Susquehanna on September 27, 2017 alleging that the Defendant violated section 660(c)(1) of the Act by retaliating against the employees. (See Doc. 1). Susquehanna responded on December 1, 2017 denying the allegations. (See Doc. 17). Susquehanna then filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, including a Brief in Support thereof and a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts on August 12, 2019. (See Doc. 23; see also Docs. 25, 26). Susquehanna claims that: (a) the Secretary has not established a causal connection between the employees reporting the injury and receiving reduced bonuses; and (b), in the alternative, the Secretaryhas not shown that reducing pay for contributing to or causing human performance errors is not a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for reducing pay. (See Doc. 23-3). The Secretary responded with a Memorandum of Law in Opposition as well as a Counterstatement of Undisputed Material Facts on September 3, 2019. (Docs. 29, 30). A Reply Brief in further support of the Motion (Doc. 31) and a Response to Plaintiff's Additional Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. 32) was filed by Susquehanna on September 17, 2019.
The Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review.
Summary judgment shall be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, I will consider "all probative materials of record, with inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party." Chavarhaga v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs., 806 F.3d 210, 218 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986)); Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 102, 105 n. 5 (3d Cir. 2000)). A fact is material if proof of its existence or nonexistence might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable substantive law. Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410, 416 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). "A dispute over a material fact is 'genuine' if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.
Where there is no material fact in dispute, the moving party need only establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Edelman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 83 F.3d 68, 70 (3d Cir. 1996). Where there is a material fact in dispute, the moving party has the initial burden of proving that: (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Howard Hess DentalLaboratories Inc. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010). The moving party may present its own evidence or, where the non-moving party has the burden of proof, simply point out to the court that "the non-moving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. "When considering whether there exist[s] genuine issues of material fact, the court is required to examine the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, and resolve all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007). Once the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial