ARB CASE NO. 00-081
ALJ CASE NO. 2000-ERA-26
DATE: February 27, 2003
In the Matter of:
EDWARD A. SLAVIN, JR.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL
LABORATORY, BATTELLE MEMORIAL
INSTITUTE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHAMPAGNE-
URBANA,
RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the Complainant:
Edward A. Slavin, Jr., Esq., pro se, St. Augustine, Florida
For the Respondents:
David A. Maestas, Esq., Battelle Memorial Institute and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington
Lisa M. Huson, Esq., Asst. University Counsel, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois
Paul R. Davis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case is before us pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) Recommended Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint and Denying Motions (R. D. & O.), which was issued on September 8, 2000. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint.
[Page 2]
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I.The Complaint
On April 19, 2000, Complainant, Edward A. Slavin, Jr., filed his complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as "an attorney and employee representative who represents environmental and nuclear whistleblowers and other victims of discrimination by the Department of Energy and its contractors" pursuant to the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (2000), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (2000), the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (2000), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) (2000), the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (2000), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (2000). Complaint at 1.
Complainant alleged that in retaliation for his postings regarding the Department of Energy's (DOE's) activities, Respondents Jim Dukelow, DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Northwest's operator, Battelle Memorial Institute, instituted a "moderation" against him on April 18, 2000, on its "listserv" chat room known as "RISKANAL" ("Risk Analysis"), whereby each of Complainant's future postings would be subjected to individual approval. Approval standards included whether the proposed message contained attacks on individuals and broad classes of people, the use of ad hominem arguments, and repetition of arguments and assertions previously posted. The "moderation," as quoted in the complaint, stated that "RISKANAL is not a list intended for political invective. Political issues are frequently important in risk management and are legitimate topics for RISKANAL, but the tone and content are important. When you are willing to adhere to the standards of comity that have been mostly characteristic of RISKANAL postings over the years, I will be happy to reconsider." Id. at 2-3. 1
1 OSHA's May 26, 2000 dismissal of the complaint noted that during Complainant's conversation with the OSHA investigator, he stated that two days after he sent Pacific Northwest National Laboratory a copy of his complaint, they rescinded their "moderation" restriction on his input into the "RISKANAL" listserver. Id. at 2.
No person shall fire, or in any way discriminate against, or cause to be fired or discriminated against, any employee or any authorizedrepresentative of employees by reason of the fact that such employee or representative has filed, instituted, or caused to be filed or instituted any proceeding under this chapter or under any applicable implementation plan, or has testified or is about to testify in any proceeding resulting from the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this chapter or of any applicable implementation plan.
No person shall fire or in any other way discriminate against, or cause to be fired or discriminated against, any employee or any authorizedrepresentative of employees by reason of the fact that such employee or representative has provided information to a State or the Federal Government, filed, instituted, or caused to be filed or instituted any proceeding under this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any proceeding resulting from the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.
42 U.S.C. § 9610(a) (emphasis added).
4 The ALJ cited the February 19, 1998 ALJ decision in Anderson. R. D. & O. at 2, 7.