DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Fritts v. Indiana Michigan Power Co., 2001-ERA-33 (ALJ Mar. 4, 2002) |
Fritts v. Indiana Michigan Power Co., 2001-ERA-33 (ALJ Mar. 4, 2002)
U.S. Department of Labor | Office of Administrative Law Judges 36 E. 7th Street, Suite 2525 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 684-3252 | ![]() |
Issue date: 04Mar2002
Case No. 2001-ERA-33
In the Matter of
CRAIG H. FRITTS
Complainant
v.
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
Respondent
On February 21, 2002, Paul J. Zaffuts, counsel for Respondent, filed a Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dominic So. On February 28, 2002, John T. Burhans, counsel for Complainant, filed an answer to the motion.
Mr. Burhans argues that the testimony is relevant in that it may show a predisposition of a company representative to terminate employees who raise safety issues. Since Complainant has the burden of establishing discriminatory animus on the part of the Respondent, Mr. Burhans suggests that So's testimony is probative and relevant to the issues here. Secondly, Mr. Burhans notes that other agents of the Respondent who were not decision makers in the Fritz matter, rescinded So's termination and dealt with him in an alternative way. He argues that this establishes that the company had a policy of dealing with employees in a manner short of termination. Mr. Burhans also argues that the testimony is relevant to the question of disparate treatment of Mr. Fritz and that the taking of the testimony would not result in undue delay or confusion.
Following due consideration of the Motion to Exclude and also the answer of Complainant to that motion, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dominic So is hereby denied.
Rudolf L. Jansen
Administrative Law Judge