Scalia v. United States Postal Service ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN J. WALSH,1 No. 1:20-cv-00435-DAD-SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE 14 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, (Doc. No. 17) 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the court on the parties’ joint stipulation to enter the proposed 18 consent decree, filed on May 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 17.) Pursuant to General Order No. 617 19 addressing the public health emergency posed by the coronavirus pandemic, the court takes this 20 matter under submission to be decided on the papers. See L.R. 230(g). For the reasons set forth 21 below, the court will grant the parties’ joint request and approve the consent decree. 22 This suit arises from a complaint for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to § 11(c) of 23 the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651–78 (“OSHA”). 24 (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff is the United States Secretary of Labor. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Defendant United 25 States Postal Service (“defendant”) operates a facility located in Modesto, California. (Id. at ¶ 3.) 26 1 This action was originally filed with the caption Eugene Scalia v. United States Postal Service. 27 Secretary Martin J. Walsh was sworn in as Secretary of the Department of Labor on March 23, 2021. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the case caption has been changed to 28 reflect Secretary Walsh’s designation. 1 On March 25, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint in this action, alleging that defendant had 2 discriminated against former employee Gaurav Mehra in violation of § 11(c)(1) of OSHA, 29 3 U.S.C. § 660(c)(1) by dismissing Mr. Mehra from employment after he suffered an injury at work 4 and filed a workers’ compensation claim. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 8, 11.) On June 19, 2020, plaintiff filed a 5 first amended complaint asserting the same substantive allegations. (Doc. No. 11 at ¶¶ 5, 8, 11.) 6 On August 11, 2020, the parties filed a joint scheduling report noting that settlement 7 discussions were ongoing. (Doc. No. 15 at ¶ 10.) On May 20, 2021, the parties filed the pending 8 stipulation and proposed consent decree. (Doc. No. 17.) 9 As part of the proposed consent decree, defendant is required to refrain from 10 discriminating against any employee because the employee exercised any right under OSHA on 11 behalf of himself or others, including filing a claim, complaint, or any proceeding under OSHA or 12 testifying in such a proceeding. (Doc. No. 17 at 2.) Defendant must post permanent or as long as 13 required by law at all current and future locations the “OSHA Fact Sheet, Filing Whistleblower 14 Complaints under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act of 1970.” (Id. at ¶ 4; Doc. No. 17-4.) No later 15 than ninety days after entry of this order, defendant must provide a one-hour training on § 11(c) 16 duties over the Zoom video conference platform to all supervisors, managers, Postmasters, and 17 Labor Relations Specialists who work at the Modesto Post Office, those employees who advise 18 managers in Modesto regarding removal actions, and all management involved in this action. 19 (Doc. No. 17 at ¶ 5.) The proposed consent decree also requires that during annual trainings, 20 management officials from every station of the Modesto Post Office must provide “a stand-up 21 talk to all of their craft employees” based upon a script to be agreed upon by both parties. (Id. at 22 ¶ 6.) Within ninety days of the entry of this order, defendant must send an email containing the 23 notice of rights and responsibilities under § 11(c)(1) of OSHA to all management officials in the 24 Sacramento District as defined by Appendix A. (Id. at ¶ 7; Doc. Nos. 17-1, 17-2.) The email 25 must also include PS Form 1767, used to report hazards or unsafe conditions or practices, as well 26 as the OSHA Fact Sheet, Filing Whistleblower Complaints under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act 27 of 1970. (Doc. Nos. 17 at ¶ 7; 17-3; 17-4.) The email must be sent on an annual basis through 28 ///// 1 2024, and defendant must copy the U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA Whistleblower Protection 2 Program on the emails. (Doc. No. 17 at ¶ 7.) 3 Additionally, the proposed consent decree provides that defendant will make a payment of 4 $25,000.00 to Guarav Mehra to be paid within forty-five (45) days of the entering of the proposed 5 consent decree. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Defendant must expunge any adverse references from Mr. Mehra’s 6 personnel records relating to defendant’s termination of Mr. Mehra’s employment, with the 7 exception of a note stating Mr. Mehra is “not eligible for rehire.” (Id. at ¶ 2) If a future employer 8 contacts defendant for a reference for Mr. Mehra, defendant shall provide only the dates of 9 employment, job title of the position held, and relevant salary information. (Id. at ¶ 3) Defendant 10 will not release any of its employment records regarding Mr. Mehra or discuss the reason for his 11 departure from the USPS without Mr. Mehra’s express written permission. (Id.) Mr. Mehra will 12 only refer prospective employers to the Human Resource Shared Service Center and shall not 13 contact anyone in the Modesto Post Office or his prior supervisors. (Id.) Finally, the proposed 14 consent decree also provides that each party shall bear its own fees and other expenses incurred in 15 connection with any stage of this action. (Id. at ¶ 8.) 16 “A consent decree is ‘essentially a settlement agreement subject to continued judicial 17 policing.’” United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Williams v. 18 Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 920 (6th Cir. 1983)). Thus, before approving a consent decree, a district 19 court must independently determine that the proposed agreement is “fundamentally fair, adequate, 20 and reasonable” and “conform[s] to applicable laws.” Id.; see also Arizona v. City of Tucson, 761 21 F.3d 1005, 1010–14 (9th Cir. 2014). “[T]he district court must balance several factors, including 22 but not limited to: strength of the plaintiffs’ case; risk, expense, complexity and possible duration 23 of continued litigation; relief offered in settlement; extent of discovery already completed; stage 24 of proceedings; experience and views of counsel; governmental participation; and reaction of the 25 class members.” Davis v. City & County of San Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438, 1445 (9th Cir. 1989) 26 (citing Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 27 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982)). Where a government agency is involved in the negotiation of the 28 proposed consent decree, there is a presumption in favor of the decree’s enforceability, and courts 1 | should pay deference to the agency’s judgment. See S.E.C. v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525, 529 (9th 2 | Cir. 1984). 3 Given the above, the court concludes this consent decree will provide substantial relief to 4 | the parties. The consent decree as proposed is the product of a fair arms-length negotiation 5 || process and is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and not illegal, collusive, or against the public 6 | interest. The negotiation of the proposed consent decree by the government agencies United 7 | States Department of Labor and the United States Postal Service further indicate that the 8 || proposed consent decree is an appropriate resolution of this case. See S.E.C. v. Randolph, 736 9 | F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding a presumption in favor of the decree’s enforceability where 10 || a government agency is involved in the negotiation of a proposed consent decree). 11 For these reasons: 12 1. The parties’ stipulation and proposed consent decree (Doc. No. 17) is approved; 13 and 14 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a - '6 Dated: _ June 8, 2021 al, A “7 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28