DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Backman v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 95-ERA-29 (ALJ May 31, 1995) |
Date: May 31, 1995 Case No.: 95-ERA-29 In the Matter of: ROBERT A. BACKMAN, Complainant, v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY, Respondent, and BELL ATLANTIC, Respondent. RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL On May 3, 1995, this Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed. This Order stated in part: On March 3, 1995, Mr. Backman filed a complaint under the Energy Reorganization Act. The complaint was denied by a District Director, U.S. Department of Labor; the complainant appealed; and the case was forwarded to this Administrative Law Judge on March 22, 1995. This office made contact with the Complainant in late March. However, subsequent attempts at communication have been unavailing. This Administrative Law Judge now questions the complainant's desire to pursue this case.
[PAGE 2] 29 C.F.R. §18.39(b) provides that a request for a hearing may be dismissed upon its abandonment by the party who filed it. Therefore, the complainant, Mr. Backman, is ordered to contact this office by May 16, 1995, or his complaint will be dismissed. The above order was sent by certified mail to Mr. Backman and his signature appears on the return receipt which was date stamped May 12, 1995. 29 C.F.R. §18.6(d)(2) pertains to a situation where a party fails to comply with an order of an Administrative Law Judge. This regulation states in part that: The administrative law judge, for the purpose of permitting resolution of the relevant issues and disposition of the proceeding without unnecessary delay despite such failure, may take such action in regard thereto as is just, including but not limited to . . . [29 C.F.R. §18.6(d)(2)(v)] (ruling) . . . that a decision of the proceeding be rendered against the non-complying party . . . . Therefore, based on the Complainant's failure to respond to an order of this Administrative Law Judge, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.6(d)(2) and 18.39(b) RICHARD K. MALAMPHY Administrative Law Judge RKM/dlh Newport News, Virginia