the first court of appeals decision to construe the term “repeatedly” as it appeared in the unamended 29 U.S.C. § 666(a), we held that a violation is “repeated” if (1) the employer had violated the same standard on at least two previous occasions; and (2) the employer “flaunted” the requirements of the Act. Bethlehem 540 F.2d at 162. In determining whether an employer had “flaunted” the requirements of the Act, the Bethlehem court considered the following factors: the number, proximity in time, nature and extent of violations, their factual and legal relatedness, the degree of care of the employer in his efforts to prevent violations of the type involved, and the nature of the duties, standards, or regulations violated. Id. at 162. The Commission found that the 1995) (expla h Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Cf. also Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,
holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority holding that threejudge panel cannot disregard or overrule circuit precedent holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable holding that a threejudge panel may reexamine circuit precedent where congress has retroactively clarified the meaning of the statute at issue