DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Roberts v. Battelle Memorial Institute, 96-ERA-24 (ALJ June 3, 1996) |
Date: June 3, 1996
Case No.: 96-ERA-24
In the Matter of:
LINDA ROBERTS,
Complainant
v.
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE; ROBERT W. SMITH, JR.;
ROBERT E. LINCOLN; KATHY OLSON; and K.C. BRAG,
Respondents.
BEFORE: JOHN M. VITTONE
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Notice of Docketing
A request for hearing in the above-captioned matter was received by this Office by telegram on May 24, 1996. The undersigned has been assigned to conduct the hearing in this matter.
Prehearing Order
The District Director's May 17, 1996 determination letter indicates that the Complainant's complaint alleges that the date of discrimination was July 18, 1994. According to the District Director's determination letter, the complaint was filed with the Department of Labor on January 27, 1995. The District Director found that the complaint was untimely because 193 days had passed between the date of alleged discrimination and the filing of the complaint.
The Energy Reorganization Act as amended in 1992 provides that "[a]ny employee who believes that he had been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation [of the antidiscrimination provision of the ERA] may, within 180 days after such violation occurs, file (or have any person file on his behalf) a complaint with
the Secretary of Labor ... alleged such discharge or discrimination." 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(1).
Requests for hearing pursuant to complaints arising from the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5851 are governed by 29 C.F.R. Part 24. Part 24 contemplates a quick scheduling of a hearing. Clearly, a potentially dispositive issue in this matter is whether the complaint was timely filed. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, the issue of timeliness will be heard prior to proceeding to the merits of the complaint.
Accordingly, a telephonic prehearing conference is scheduled for June 10, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. E.S.T. The parties shall call the undersigned's secretary at (202) 565-5431 as soon as possible upon receipt of this order to provide a telephone number for the conference call. The Respondents shall also identify who will be participating in the conference call. If a party is not available for a telephone conference at the scheduled time, that party shall inform my secretary of that fact as soon as possible. At the prehearing conference, the following matters will be discussed:
The Complainant in this matter appears to be proceeding pro se. It is noted that complainants in Part 24 proceedings have a right to be represented by private counsel, and that Complainant is encouraged to consider whether she should retain an attorney or other representative prior to the prehearing conference. See 29 C.F.R. § 18.34(a) and § 24.5(d).
SO ORDERED
John M.
Vittone
Chief
Administrative Law Judge
JMV/trs