1 This appeal has been assigned to a panel of two Board members, as authorized by Secretary's Order 2-96. 61 Fed. Reg. 19,978 §5 (May 3, 1996).
2 Atkins filed a written report regarding the safety defects for truck 263.
3 In his brief before the Board on appeal, Atkins argues that Respondent failed to disprove that discrimination occurred because Respondent did not call various witnesses. This proposition attempts to turn the burden of proof on its head. It is well-settled that in a whistleblower case, it is the complainant who must demonstrate the elements of a prima facie case, including the fact that an adverse action occurred.
4 Atkins does not argue that unloading truck 248 was beyond the scope of his duties.