U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Heritage Plaza, Suite 530
111 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
Metairie. LA 70005
CASE NO. 90-ERA-3
In the Matter of
RAMESH C. LAHOTI
Complainant
v.
BROWN & ROOT AND
TEXAS UTILITIES
Respondents
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
[PAGE 1]
This proceeding arises under the Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), 42
U.S.C. Section 5851 etseq., and its implementing
regulations, 29 C.F.R. Section 24. Mr. Ramesh C. Lahoti,
Complainant, filed this action against Brown & Root and Texas
Utilities, Respondents.
A pre-trial conference was conducted in Dallas, Texas
January 2, 1990. At that time the Court indicated that it would
consider the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Respondent
Brown & Root November 17, 1989. Respondent Texas Utilities filed
a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgement
January 12, 1990. Complainant, who is pro se and currently in
India, was given until February 2, 1990 to file responses. No
response has been filed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Complainant was deposed in Dallas, Texas November 29 and
December 1, 1989. Hearing exhibits 2 & 3). Complainant
testified that he was employed by Brown & Root as a Quality
Control Inspector from December 16, 1981 until he was terminated
February 22, 1989. (Hearing exhibit 2, p.40).
After being discharged, Complainant contacted Mr. J.F.
Streeter, Texas Utilities' Director, of Quality Assurance, and
Mr. R.J. Vurpillat, Brown and Root's Quality Assurance Manager,
regarding the circumstances of his dismissal. (Hearing Exhibit 2
pp.l07-10; 116-17, 118, 138-39; Hearing Exhibit 4 (also
marked Deposition Exhibits 8,9, and 17)). Complainant
testified that
his first contact with the Nuclear Regulatory Agency was July 12,
1989. During that conversation it was suggested to Complainant
that he contact the Department of Labor. This was the first
discussion by anyone concerning contacting the Department of
Labor. Subsequently, Complainant filed a complaint with the
Department of Labor October 11, 1989. (Hearing Exhibit 2 pp. 70,
146, Hearing Exhibit 3 p.244, Hearing Exhibit 4 (also marked
Deposition Exhibit 3)). Complainant testified that no management
employee of Brown & Root or Texas Utilities advised against
contacting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Department of
Labor. In fact, no one advised Complainant against contacting
either agency. (Hearing Exhibit 2 pp. 148-9).
Complainant alleges that the correspondence from Respondent
[PAGE 2]
dated March 28, June 2, and June 14, 1989 may have been designed
to delay the filing of a complaint with the Department
of Labor. (Hearing Exhibit 4). A review of the correspondence
does not support Complainant's contention and he did not
file a complaint until approximately four months after
the correspondence dated June 14, 1989.
There is nothing in the record which would warrant
an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.
Hicks v.Colonial Motor Freight Lines, 84-STA-20 (December
10, 1985). The Court concludes, therefore, that Complainant
did not file a complaint within thirty (30) days of the
alleged violation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Section 5851
(b)(l) and 20 C.F.R. Section 24.3 (b).
It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Motions for Summary Judgement filed by Respondents are GRANTED and
this case is hereby DISMISSED.
Entered this Ninth day of March, 1990, at Metairie, Louisiana.
JAMES W. KERR, JR
Administrative Law Judge
JWK:dqc
d/47
