September 23, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CASE NO. 81-ERA-1
In the Matter of
WILLIAM DAN DEFORD
vs.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
William Dan DeFord filed a complaint alleging that the respondent discriminated against him by transferring him from one position to another because of activities to carry out the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in violation of Section 210 of that Act (92 Stat. 2951; 42 U.S.C. 5851). After an investigation, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, determined that DeFord had been discriminated against as prohibited by the Act. In his decision, dated October 9, 1980, the following relief was ordered;
[Page 2]
Both the complainant and the respondent filed appeals from the Administrator's decision. At their request a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge, hereinafter referred to as the Judge. Thereafter, the Judge issued a recommended decision dated January 7, 1981, containing his recommended findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order. He found that the complainant was discriminated against by the respondent for acts protected by 42 U.S.C. 5851, in violation of that Section. He also found that medical expenses and damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish and injury to reputation resulting from discrimination prohibited by the Act are recoverable under 42 U.S.C. 5851. However, he found that the complainant had not offered sufficient evidence of the mental injury allegedly suf- ordered that the October 9, 1980 decision of the Administrator be affirmed. In addition to the relief provided in that decision, the Judge ordered that the respondent compensate the complainant in the amount of $50,000 for injury to his professional reputation. On the basis of the entire record, it is my conclusion that [Page 3] the findings and conclusions in the Judge's recommended decision of January 7, 1981, with respect to whether DeFord was discriminated against in violation of the Act are supported by the evidence in the record and are proper, and I adopt them as my own. Accordingly, I find that the respondent, the Tennessee Valley Authority, violated Section 210 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 5851) by discriminating against the complainant because of activities protected by that Section. I do not agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that medical expenses and damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and injury to reputation resulting from discrimination prohibited by the Act are recoverable by a claimant under 42 U.S.C. 5851. I find that the Administrative Law Judge erred in holding that damages for these items may be recovered under that provision. Such items do not come within the intended scope of the remedy provided thereby. See the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. 5851, 1978 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 7303. Accordingly, the respondent, the Tennessee Valley Authority, is hereby ordered:
[Page 4]
|
||||||||
|