WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD; ESTATE OF DANIEL A. AYRES - Articles

All Content

WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD; ESTATE OF DANIEL A. AYRES

Posted by: Karen Belcher on May 24, 2023

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Donald G. Slezak, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Weatherford.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Linda Hong Hanh Wiles, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for United States Department of Labor.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Martin S. Hume, MARTIN S. HUME CO., L.P.A., Youngstown, Ohio, for Estate of Daniel Ayres.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: 20-4342/21-3282: Donald G. Slezak, David A. Campbell, Andrea V. Arnold, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Weatherford.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Linda Hong Hanh Wiles, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for United States Department of Labor.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Martin S. Hume, MARTIN S. HUME CO., L.P.A., Youngstown, Ohio, for Estate of Daniel Ayres.

Judge(s): BUSH, LARSEN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: On Petitions for Review from the United States Department of Labor

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Daniel Ayres brought an administrative action complaining that his former employer, Weatherford U.S., L.P., had retaliated against him for engaging in protected behavior under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the Department of Labor found for Ayres and awarded him backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Ayres passed away in the middle of the ALJ proceedings. The Administrative Review Board (Board) affirmed the ALJ’s awards, except for punitive damages. The Board concluded that the punitive damages claim had abated upon Ayres’s death. Ayres’s estate petitions for review of the reversal of punitive damages. Weatherford petitions for review of the Board’s ruling that it violated the STAA and the accompanying damages and fees. For the reasons that follow, we DENY both petitions.

Attachments: