|
|
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||
 |
| September 24, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
|
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Office of Administrative Law Judges Heritage Plaza, Suite 530 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. Metairie, LA 70005 In the Matter of
RUBEN RICHARD GARCIA, vs.
EBASCO SERVICES, INC.,
Rueben Richard Garcia (COmplainant) made a complaint under the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), 42 U.S.C. 5851, on November 26, 1986. By letter dated December 23, 1986 Complainant was informed by the Employment Administration, Wage and Hour Division, of the U. S. Department of Labor (DOL), that his complaint alleging job discrimination by his employer, EBASCO Services Inc. (Employer), could not be considered and no investigation of the complaint would be conducted. As reasons, DOL stated that the complaint was not timely filed because the Complainant became aware of ERA on October 26, 1986, and did not file a complaint within 30 days. The letter of December 23, 1986, further informed the Complainant that he had five days from receipt of that letter in which to request a hearing. It would appear from the file that nothing further has been received from the Complainant until a wire dated April 30, 1987, from an attorney, Billie Garde, in essense stating that the Complainant had first become aware of DOL's denial letter on April 29, 1987, and requesting a hearing on the issues of timeliness and the merits of the case.
It is hereby ORDERED that the Complainant is granted twenty days from the date of this Order to show cause in writing and supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence where [Page 2] necessary: (1) why he did not timely request a hearing from DOL's letter of December 23, 1986, and (2) why he failed to file his original complaint within 30 days after becoming aware of ERA. All pleadings shall be served on opposing parties, including DOL and the Employer, all of whom shall have 15 days thereafter in which to respond to the contentions of the Complainant. The merits of the Complainant's original complaint are not in issue at this time, only the issues of timeliness. Failure of the Complainant to prevail on either issue of timeliness shall result in an affirmance of DOL's original decision of December 23, 1986. Entered this 29th day of May, 1987, at Metairie, Louisiana.
C. RICHARD AVERY
|
||||||||
| ||||||||
