DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Daugherty v. General Physics Corp., 92-SDW-2 (Sec'y Apr. 19, 1995) |
DATE: April 19, 1995 CASE NO. 92-SDW-2 IN THE MATTER OF PAUL C. DAUGHERTY, COMPLAINANT, v. GENERAL PHYSICS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR FINAL DECISION AND ORDER This case was brought by Complainant Paul C. Daugherty pursuant to the employee protection provisions of the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (1988); the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988); the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) (1988); the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988); the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988); and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988) (the environmental whistleblower provisions). Daugherty alleged that General Physics Corporation (General Physics) fired him in retaliation for activity protected by the environmental whistleblower provisions. Following an evidentiary hearing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. and O.) (attached) concluding that Daugherty had not established a
[PAGE 2] prima facie case of retaliation. The ALJ recommended that the case be dismissed. Because the ALJ's findings of fact are amply supported by the evidence and his conclusions of law are correct, I adopt his R. D. and O. and dismiss the case. In order to establish a prima facie case in an environmental whistleblower case, a complainant must show that: (1) the complainant engaged in protected conduct; (2) the employer was aware of that conduct; and (3) the employer took some adverse action against him. Dean Darty v. Zack Company of Chicago, Case No. 82-ERA-2, Sec. Dec., Apr. 25, 1983, slip op. at 7-8. The complainant also must present evidence sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was the likely reason for the adverse action. Id. See also cCuistion v. TVA, Case No. 89-ERA-6, Sec. Dec., Nov. 13, 1991, slip op at 5-6; Mackowiak v. University Nuclear Systems, Inc., 735 F.2d 1159, 1162 (6th Cir. 1983). As the ALJ accurately concluded, Daugherty neither pled nor presented any evidence from which one could conclude that he engaged in protected activity within the meaning of the environmental whistleblower provisions. Without some evidence to support this essential element of a prima facie case, Daugherty's complaint must be dismissed. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons I adopt the ALJ's recommended decision and order and dismiss this case. SO ORDERED. ROBERT B. REICH Secretary of Labor Washington, D.C.