Roger Reed v. United States Department of Labor, Administrative Review Board

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 15, 2023*
Decided June 16, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1235
ROGER REED,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
BOARD,
Respondent,
and
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Intervening Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order from the
United States Department of Labor.
No. 2021-0044
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 22-1235 Page 2
O R D E R
American Airlines suspended Roger Reed, an airplane mechanic, while
investigating allegations that he had attempted to sabotage an airplane. Reed filed a
complaint with the Department of Labor, alleging that the airline suspended him in
retaliation for reporting safety concerns other mechanics were ignoring. An
administrative law judge at the Department rejected that claim, and the Administrative
Review Board upheld that determination. Because substantial evidence supported this
conclusion, we deny the petition for review.
Reed’s claim arises out of an aircraft inspection at Chicago O’Hare International
Airport in April 2018. Three of American’s airplane mechanics were assigned to inspect
an aircraft and found no issues. A different employee told Reed about an issue with a
pressurized door on that plane, and Reed went to the plane to warn the mechanics.
There are conflicting accounts about what happened next. Reed says he walked
under the plane and inspected the door. He insists he did not touch the plane while he
was underneath it. He says he then approached the mechanics to report the issue, and
they responded that they were there only for overtime and refused to fix anything. The
mechanics, meanwhile, say they saw Reed walk underneath the plane, touch part of it,
and then tell them something was broken. After Reed left, they reinspected the part of
the plane touched by Reed and found no safety issues.
Both Reed and the mechanics filed reports about the incident. Reed filed a
confidential report against the mechanics for failing to address the issue with the door.
The mechanics later signed a joint statement to American’s management accusing Reed
of attempting to delay the flight by “sabotag[ing]” the plane.
Given its safety implications, the mechanics’ report immediately sparked concern
among American’s management. Management concluded that it needed to investigate,
and a senior manager suspended Reed with pay during the investigation. Suspension
with pay is common practice at American (occurring in about 80% of investigations),
and management deemed it warranted here because of the seriousness of the allegation
and possibility that Reed could interfere with the investigation. American finished its
investigation after about a month, finding the evidence insufficient to substantiate the
sabotage claim against Reed. He returned to work and was never disciplined.
Reed filed an administrative complaint with the Secretary of Labor under
49 U.S.C. § 42121. The statute prohibits airlines from retaliating against an employee

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 22-1235 Page 3
who reports violations of federal aviation-safety laws. See § 42121(a)(1). Reed asserted
that American suspended him in retaliation for reporting his safety concern to the three
mechanics. American responded that the mechanics’ allegation of sabotage against
Reed—attempting to make the plane unsafe for air travel to cause a flight delay—was
so severe that the company would have suspended Reed regardless of his report. (The
argument that an employer would have taken an adverse action regardless of the
protected activity is a complete affirmative defense. See § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iii)–(iv); see
also Harp v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 558 F.3d 722, 723 (7th Cir. 2009).)
An administrative law judge held a hearing and concluded that Reed had met his
prima facie case of retaliation: He engaged in protected activity by reporting to the
mechanics that there was an issue with the door; suspension with pay was an adverse
action; and causation could be inferred because management knew of this report from
the mechanics’ letter and because the letter was close in time to the suspension. The ALJ
then determined that American would have suspended Reed regardless because it
reasonably proceeded with “extreme caution” when confronted with a serious
allegation of sabotage. For largely the same reasons, the Administrative Review Board
affirmed. (Its decision is the one technically under review before us. See 29 C.F.R.
§§ 1979.110, 1979.112.) Reed petitioned for review in this court, and our review is
governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. See § 42121(b)(4)(A).
Reed has filed a rambling appellate brief, over 100 pages long, that makes factual
assertions without context and is devoid of references to the record and citations to
legal authority. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a); see also F ED. R. A PP . P. 20 (Rule 28 applies to
petitioner seeking review of agency order). Even though he fails to clearly identify why
the Board’s order should be disturbed, we understand him to argue that certain facts in
the record are disputed. We will uphold the Board’s decision if it is supported by
substantial evidence, Brousil v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., Admin. Rev. Bd., 43 F.4th 808, 813
(7th Cir. 2022), that is, if there is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support [the Board’s] conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct.
1148, 1154 (2019).
Reed’s disputed facts are immaterial because substantial evidence supports the
Board’s decision that the sabotage allegation—not Reed’s report—caused American to
suspend him with pay. Management consistently testified that air-travel safety is the
company’s top priority, and allegations about sabotage implicate safety. Management
likewise testified consistently that its response to these allegations (suspension with
pay) was motivated by the seriousness of the accusation and the need to prevent Reed’s

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 22-1235 Page 4
possible interference with the investigation. Indeed, a senior manager said that
suspensions with pay occur in 80% of American’s investigations. Cumulatively, this
testimony is substantial evidence that American would have suspended Reed with pay
regardless of his report of the three mechanics’ safety failures.
Reed also seems to argue that the Board overlooked evidence supposedly
proving that witnesses committed perjury and that he was subject to additional
retaliatory actions after he returned to work (e.g., prevented from receiving overtime
assignments). But he does not develop any arguments to warrant further discussion
regarding these issues.
Therefore, we DENY the petition.

-- 4 of 4 --