ARB CASE NO. 03-043
ALJ CASE NO. 03-CAA-7
DATE: March 19, 2004
In the Matter of:
JAMES G. BLODGETT, JR.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT AND
CONSERVATION,
RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the Complainant:
Edward A. Slavin, Jr., Esq., St. Augustine, Florida
For the Respondent:
Kim L. Kirk, Esq., Department of Environmental and Conservation, Nashville, Tennessee
R. Jan Jennings, Esq., Carrol D. Kilgore, Esq., Branstetter, Kilgore, Stranch & Jennings, Nashville, Tennessee
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
This case arose when the Complainant, James G. Blodgett, Jr., filed a complaint alleging that his employer, the Respondent, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), terminated his employment in violation of the whistleblower protection provisions of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 7622 (West 1995); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.A § 9610 (West 1995); the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 1367 (West 2001); the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 300(j)-9(i) (West 1991); the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 6971 (West 1995); and the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 2622 (West 1998). A Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge issued a Decision and Order Granting Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision and Dismissing Complaint on January 28, 2003.
Gass v. United States Dep't of Energy, ARB No. 03-035, ALJ No. 02-CAA-2, slip op. at 7 (Jan. 14, 2004).
[Page 3]
Accordingly, because Blodgett has failed to prosecute his case and has failed to respond to our Show Cause Order to explain his failure to file a brief pursuant to the Board's Briefing Order, we DISMISS his complaint.3
1 The Secretary has delegated authority to the Administrative Review Board to issue final decisions in appeals under the whistleblower provisions of the federal environmental statutes at 29 C.F.R. § 24.1. Sec'y Ord. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64272 (Oct. 17, 2002).
2 The Court did note, however, "[I]f an attorney's conduct falls substantially below what is reasonable under the circumstances, the client's remedy is against the attorney in a suit for malpractice." 370 U.S. at 634 n.10.
3 Given our dismissal of Blodgett's complaint because he failed to respond to our Show Cause Order to explain why he had failed to file a brief pursuant to our briefing order, Blodgett's outstanding Motion for Immediate Remand is moot.