1. Should any other corporation beside Georgia Power Company be liable for the
remedy in this proceeding under the doctrine of joint or single employer?
2. Should Respondent be ordered to reinstate Complainant to the same or
comparable
employment or in the alternative, ordered to pay front pay to Complainant?
3. What monetary damages should be awarded to Complainant?
4. Is Complainant entitled to any affirmative remedies?
5. Is Complainant entitled to compensatory damages for humiliation,
embarrassment
and loss of reputation?
STIPULATIONS
Georgia Power Company (hereinafter "Respondent" or
"GPC") and Complainant, Marvin Hobby,
[Page 4]
stipulated to and I find the following
facts:
1. The news reports attached hereto as Appendix A and identified as Bates Nos. 16775
through 16798 are the news accounts which discuss Complainant's Department of Labor action
against GPC which the parties have been able to locate.
2. As of March 1, 1989, and at the time of his separation from GPC, Complainant's
annual salary was $103,104.
3. As of December 1988, Complainant's position level at GPC was Level 20
(10).2
one organization would be limited to the Funding Percentages times the midpoints of the salary
ranges of all the employees in such organization. In 1997, GPC began using the actual salaries of
employees rather than the salary range midpoints. Had Complainant remained at GPC beyond
April
2, 1990, PPP awards would have been paid to Complainant by March 15 of each year (for the
preceding calendar year).
7. Complainant earned $3,161 in salary and $717 in business income in 1992, $18,
961 in salary in 1993, $25, 339 in salary in 1994, $25,225 in salary 1995, and $30, 397 in salary
1996. Complainant's annual salary in 1997 corresponds to $32,525.
8. The applicable federal rates (AFR) to be used in calculating interest on
Complainant's net monetary damages are listed below. A 3 % underpayment rate must be added
to
these rates.
9. Had Complainant remained with GPC beyond April 2, 1990, he would
have been
assigned a mid-sized car from 1990 through October 31, 1993. Effective October 31, 1993, GPC
discontinued its practice of assigning vehicles to Company officers and managers. At that time
Complainant would have received a payment of $7,400 plus $2,957 to cover federal and state
taxes
on the $7400 payment. Complainant was assessed (as additional income) for his automobile in
1987-
1989 as follows: 1987 - $3520; 1988 - $3507; and 1989 - $3442.
10. Had Complainant remained with GPC beyond April 2, 1990, Complainant
would
have accrued vacation time at the rate of three weeks per year until October 25, 1993, and after
that
time he would have accrued vacation time at the rate of four weeks per year.
11. Had Complainant remained with GPC through 1995, 1996 and 1997 at Level
20
(10) or higher, the value of the stock grant which Complainant would have received would have
been
calculated as follows: Stock Grant = salary x grant multiple of .75 divided by stock price (1995 =
[Page 6]
$21.625; 1996 = $23; 1997 = $21.25); value of stock options are estimated at $2.85 (1995 grant),
$3.39 (1996 grant), and $2.73 (1997 grant).
12. The deposition of Mr. James W. Averett, dated October 28, 1996, as corrected
on
January 7, 1997, constitutes the testimony of Mr. Averett in lieu of his live appearance at the
remand
hearing.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant filed his complaint on February 6, 1990. The Acting
Regional
Director determined that Complainant had been discriminated against and called for restoration
of
Complainant to his former position. Georgia Power filed a timely request for a hearing along
with
a complaint alleging that it had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to participate in the
investigation. On May 25, 1990, the District Director amended the prior findings based on
additional information and found that the Complainant's termination from his job with Georgia
Power was not based on his having engaged in any protected activity. Complainant filed a timely
request for a hearing.
On October 23 to 26, 1990 and November 13, 1990, a hearing took
place
before Administrative Law Judge Joel Williams. On November 8, 1991, ALJ Williams issued a
Recommended Decision and Order in favor of Georgia Power. On August 4, 1995, the Secretary
of Labor rejected the Recommended Decision and Order and issued a Decision and Remand
Order
ordering Georgia Power:
to offer Complainant reinstatement to the same or a
comparable position to which he is entitled, with
comparable pay and benefits, to pay Complainant the
back pay to which he is entitled, and to pay
Complainant's costs and expenses in bringing this
complaint, including a reasonable attorney's fee. This
case is hereby REMANDED to the ALJ for such
further proceedings as may be necessary to establish
Complainant's complete remedy. Hobby v.
Georgia Power Company, 90-ERA-30,
at 28 (Sec'y August 4, 1995).
On December 11, 1995, Complainant filed a Petition for Attorneys'
Fees
and Costs, Motion for a Hearing on Compensatory Damages, and Position on Economic
Damages.
[Page 7]
Respondent filed an opposing pleading. On December 11, 1995, Respondent filed a Motion for
an
Evidentiary Hearing Upon Remand asserting that there remained unresolved factual issues as to
whether Complainant was barred from reinstatement and back pay because of corporate
downsizing
and reorganizations or by a failure to mitigate his damages and whether a comparable
reinstatement
position existed. Complainant filed an opposing pleading. ALJ Williams retired on February 2,
1996 and Administrative Law Judge Edith Barnett was assigned to this matter. ALJ Barnett set a
hearing for the week of August 19, 1996 and allowed the parties to commence pre-hearing
discovery.
As a result of discovery disputes, on July 9, 1996 ALJ Barnett postponed the hearing date and
issued
a new scheduling order. During the pre-hearing discovery period, the parties filed a joint motion
to defer discovery concerning attorneys' fees, including a ruling as to whether such discovery
would
be permitted, until the end of the proceeding. On January 7, 1997, ALJ Barnett granted the
parties'
motion regarding attorneys' fees. On June 13, 1997, ALJ Barnett re-set the hearing date for
August
4 through August 8, 1997.
During pre-hearing discovery, Complainant sought discovery of
documents from Georgia Power's parent company, The Southern Company, and from other
Southern
Company subsidiaries (Southern System). ALJ Barnett, in an order dated July 9, 1996, permitted
Complainant's discovery requests over Respondent's objections. On June 3, 1997, Respondent
filed
a Motion for Summary Decision on the joint or single employer status of the Southern System.
On
July 31, 1997, ALJ Barnett deferred ruling on this issue until after the completion of the hearing.
Evidentiary hearings were held August 4, 1997 through August 8,
1997
and October 6, 1997 through October 10, 1997. The hearings were supplemented with
video-taped
testimony taken on October 23, 24 and 27, 1997. On October 20, 1997, ALJ Barnett issued a
Scheduling Order for closing the record and filing of post-hearing briefs, which cautioned the
parties
that their post-hearing briefs were to conform to the following requirements: "(1)
arguments
shall be objective, discussing all relevant evidence both favorable and unfavorable; (2) explicit
references to the record must be included; and (3) arguments shall be limited to those matters
remanded to the Office of Administrative Law Judges by the Secretary of Labor's August 4, 1995
Decision and Remand Order."
The record was completed by filings of the parties made on December
[Page 8]
31,
1997 and January 15, 1998. Following the unexpected death of ALJ Barnett, this matter was
reassigned to me on January 27, 1998. On April 3, 1998, both parties filed post-hearing briefs
and
followed by reply briefs on May 5 and 7, 1998.
Franklin is the current President and CEO of Respondent and is on the
Board of Directors of Southern Company Services (SCS), Southern Nuclear, Southern Energy,
Inc.,
and Southern Communications (Tr. 371-2). Prior to holding this position, Franklin was
President
and CEO of SCS and prior to that had worked for Alabama Power (Tr. 373). Franklin testified
that
Southern Company was an electric utility holding company with subsidiaries including,
Respondent,
Alabama Power, SCS and others (Tr. 371-2). Mr. Dahlberg is the current President and CEO of
Southern Company, but had been President of GPC until 1993 (Tr. 372-3). Franklin never
worked
directly with Complainant, and heard of him initially only in connection with the present
Winkler began employment with GPC in 1976 in the Corporate
Communications Department and after holding several other positions moved to Southern
Company
[Page 28]
Services as a staffing manager in 1995, and remains in that position (Tr. 1713). His duties in the
position include analyzing the workforce of the Southern System and providing recruitment and
planning support to the companies (Tr. 1783-4).
Winkler became involved in downsizing at GPC in 1991 when he took
the position of Human Resources Research Coordinator (Tr. 1713). He testified that downsizing
became necessary as a cost reduction mechanism due to increased competition (Tr. 1714). To
the
best of his knowledge, Complainant was the only employee at a level 19 (10) or higher who was
involuntarily separated as a result of downsizing efforts (Tr. 1790).
Winkler submitted an affidavit in this matter, but, at the hearing, noted
that it contained several errors (Tr. 1716; RXR-2). These errors were corrected by interrogatory
response (RXR-3). Respondent undertook downsizing in several ways (Tr. 1738). Employees
who
had reached the age of 55 with at least ten years of service were offered early retirement.
Individual
departments undertook evaluations of their operations and employees and offered severance
benefits
and outplacement to those who were downsized (Tr. 1738). Other employees were offered
positions
elsewhere in the company at a lower level (Tr. 1741). From January 1, 1989 to September 1,
1995,
GPC reduced by 3,645 its number of total employees (RXR-2, 2).45 In this same time period GPC went
from
91 employees at a Level 18 (9) or above to 69 such employees (RXR-3, 2). The majority of
these
reductions occurred from 1994 to 1996 (RXR-3, 2).
Folsom consulted Winkler on the methodology of production of the
chart
in Winkler's responses (Tr. 2552; RXR-3). The methodology employed excluded employees
who
transferred into level 18 (9) or higher positions at GPC, GPC employees who transferred to other
subsidiaries, GPC employees at level 17 (9) or below who were promoted into a level 18 (9) or
higher position, GPC employees at level 17 (9) or below who had job changes or title changes
into
a new 18 (9) position, vacant positions at GPC, and all newly created level 18 (9) positions (Tr.
2554-6).48
G. Testimony of Fred Williams (&
Deposition Testimony)
Williams began employment with Southern Company in 1969 in the
system planning area with transmission generation planning. In 1982, he moved to GPC as
general
manager for power markets, but transferred back to Southern Company in 1995 as Senior VP of
wholesale energy. He held that position until October 1997, when he returned to GPC as Senior
VP
(Tr. 1859-60).
Dr. Davenport is presently employed by Cox Enterprises, Inc., but
previously worked for the Southern System as Director of Human Resources, East (Tr. 1931).
Eubanks joined the Southern System in 1969 in the procurement
organization of GPC. In 1976 he moved to Southern Company Services to work for the vice
president of human resources and in 1990 became manager of leadership development and
planning
(Tr. 2074-5).
In late 1996, Eubanks compiled a list of positions Level 19 (10) and
above
for which there was a system wide search (Tr. 2076; RXR-4; RXR-4A). He further oversaw the
preparation of a second compilation of positions below level 19 (10), available from mid-1990 to
the end of 1990 (Tr. 2083; RXR-20).
J. Testimony of Steven Wilkinson
Wilkinson joined the Southern System in 1980 in the human resources
department of Mississippi Power. He continued there until 1989 when he was transferred to
Southern Company Services and has continued in the position of compensation manager for
Southern Company since that time (Tr. 2124). In this position, Wilkinson assisted the subsidiary
management in developing policy in the compensation and employee benefits area (Tr. 2125).58
Smith began his employment with Southern System approximately 26
years ago in the data center of Southern Company Services. After seven years he transferred to
GPC
and served in various positions until two years ago when he transferred back to Southern
Company
Services (Tr. 2490-1). In 1989, Smith was employed as manager of bulk power marketing
services
for Respondent (Tr. 2491).
Following the elimination of NOCA, the three employees, Johnson,
Proctor and Mintz, under Complainant's supervision were transferred to Smith's section (Tr.
2494).
Smith's responsibilities, contact administration, negotiation and interfacing with plant co-owners
and
other Southern Company sections, did not change following this transfer nor did his
compensation
level 17 (9) (Tr. 2496-7). Some of NOCA's responsibilities were absorbed by Southern Nuclear
in
Birmingham (Tr. 2504). Smith testified that there were no available positions in levels 17
through
20 (9 through 10) in the bulk power organization (Tr. 2500).
M. Testimony of David H.W. Griswold
(& Deposition Testimony)
Griswold has been employed in the professional career services field
since
1979 and specializes in the placement of senior executives (Tr. 1487, 1489). He has placed
approximately 400 individuals in senior level management and corporate executive positions (Tr.
1490). Griswold went to work for R.L. Stevens in 1990 as a managing partner until 1993 and
then
took the position of general manager of the Atlanta office (Tr. 1491). He testified that in 90+
percent of unemployed clients' cases, he is able to find work. Sixty percent of these individuals
find
work at a higher salary (Tr. 1642-3). Griswold worked with Complainant from April through
September 1992 (Tr. 1563). Complainant's relationship with R.L. Stevens was terminated
prematurely because of his inability to make the final payment for services (Tr. 1623).
Griswold explained that R.L. Stevens had two program options for
clients
and Complainant opted for the full service program (Tr. 1493; CX-62). Griswold was assigned
to
counsel Complainant, as he worked with most of the senior executives retaining R.L. Stevens
(Tr.
1496). Griswold testified that clients of R.L. Stevens were given extensive
"homework,"
which he estimated would take approximately 20 to 24 hours to complete (Tr. 1497). Clients
were
also sent to an all day seminar to discuss interview strategies and research possibilities (Tr.
1497).
R.L. Stevens would then assist the client in preparing a resume, cover letter and marketing letters
and would move the client to the implementation phase of the job search (Tr. 1498). Griswold
testified that Complainant followed this program and had an "exceptionally positive and
conscientious" attitude (Tr. 1498-9, 1520). Griswold was certain that Complainant would
be
successful in his job search within a "short period of time" (Tr. 1518). Complainant
[Page 38]
kept
Griswold advised of his progress and Griswold found him to be doing an "excellent job of
implementation in terms of contacting people and getting out letters and doing the various
requirements of the plan".
Griswold testified to Complainant's strengths in seeking new
employment:
one of Marvin's major assets was his ability to manage projects and he had managed
multiple projects. . . . We also felt that his ability to organize . . . and that could
include scheduling and planning, coordinating were strengths. We also felt that he
was strong in the areas of financial controls. He had had exposure to projects that
were certainly bottom line driven and he had good experience in that area. . . . I felt
his communication skills were exemplary. And we felt that he had the ability to train
others (Tr. 1522).
He further testified to Complainant's weaknesses, "Any time someone is
unemployed that
becomes a concern. How they were, the events leading up to that termination are always a
concern" (Tr. 1522). He testified that the job search of an individual involved in litigation
would be negatively affected due to the work involved in pursuing litigation (Tr. 1494).
Only eight ads met three or more of these factors and only four ads met all five factors (Tr.
1610,
CX-156). Griswold acknowledged that, although rated a 2 or a 3, some of the ads were from
companies that Complainant could contact to determine if other positions were available for
which
he would be qualified (Tr. 2402).
Griswold questioned Cimino's methodology in presenting the
"strawman" for positions. He indicated that randomly calling companies was not a
cost
or time effective manner for finding a new position. In addition, he testified that a company
requesting a resume may not actually have a position open (Tr. 1612-14).
Griswold agreed that, under normal circumstances, Complainant
should
have taken advantage of the offer of the outplacement services of Payne-Lendman when offered
by
Respondent (Tr. 1618). Payne-Lendman is considered a "good" outplacement firm
(Tr.
1619).
In obtaining high level management positions, Griswold testified that
an
applicant's style and character are equally as important as his/her experience. "Style"
includes anything from dress to mannerisms and presence (Tr. 1514-15). Griswold testified that
Complainant possessed a style appropriate for one in a high level management position,
[Page 42]
including
CEO (Tr. 1516). Complainant was well-liked by the staff at R.L. Stevens and they would take
extra
steps to assure that his work was done efficiently, correctly and punctually (Tr. 1518). R.L.
Stevens
would often offer typing services in conjunction with its full-service clients (Tr. 1519). Nothing
in
Complainant's work history or style would have prevented him from continuing to move up the
corporate ladder (Tr. 1518).
Griswold testified that it would be difficult for Complainant to obtain a
position with a wage more than 20% less than his salary at GPC. Employers are hesitant to hire
over-qualified individuals because they are likely to become bored and move on to new
opportunities. Therefore, Complainant would find it difficult to obtain an executive position
which
earned less than $80,000 per year ((Tr. 1559).
Dr. Staller concluded that Complainant should have been able to earn
approximately sixty to eighty percent of what he was earning prior to his termination and should
have been able to obtain alternative employment within three to six months (Tr. 731). In his
calculations, Dr. Staller increased Complainant's earnings at four percent and added health
coverage,
ESOP, and savings plan (Tr. 732). He concluded that, through the end of 1996, Complainant lost
$388,445.00 (Tr. 733; RXR-10, 10). Dr. Staller also calculated Complainant's loss using his
actual
[Page 44]
salary from UPS and concluded that, through the end of 1996, Complainant lost ,236,699.00
(Tr.
733-4). Dr. Staller stated that because of Complainant's history, experience, and the down-sizing
of
management at GPC, Complainant had a "fair probability of getting whacked" (Tr.
781).
On cross-examination, Dr. Staller agreed that statistical evidence that
is
grounded in facts specific to the individual is more reliable in determining damages (Tr. 747).84
O. Testimony of Dr. Steven I. Jackson (&
Deposition Testimony)
Dr. Jackson is currently an adjunct associate professor of public policy
for Cornell University, based in Washington, D.C., and teaches two courses on research
methodology. He is a fellow with the Center for the Study of American government at Johns
Hopkins University and also teaches a course in research methodology for master's degree
candidates. Dr. Jackson testified that most of his research involves economics and the use of
statistics and statistical research (Tr. 2177-80).
The Act and implementing regulations provide that:
[T]he Secretary shall order the person who committed such violation to (i) take
affirmative action to abate the violation, and (ii) reinstate the complainant to his
former position together with the compensation (including back pay), terms,
conditions, and privileges of his employment, and the Secretary may order such
person to provide compensatory damages to the complainant. If an order is issued
under this paragraph, the Secretary, at the request of the complainant shall assess
against the person against whom the order is issued a sum equal to the aggregate
amount of all costs and expenses (including attorneys' and expert witness fees)
reasonably incurred, as determined by the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. §
5851(b)(2)(B).
If the Secretary concludes that the party charged has violated the law, the
final order shall order the party charged to take appropriate affirmative action to
abate the violation, including reinstatement of the complainant to that person's former
or substantially equivalent position, if desired, together with the compensation
(including back pay), terms, conditions, and privileges of that employment. The
Secretary may, where deemed appropriate, order the party charged to provide
compensatory damages to the complainant. 29 C.F.R. §24.6(a)(2).
A.
Single Employer or Joint Employer Doctrine
On June 3, 1997, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Decision on
[Page 50]
the employer status of all Southern System companies besides GPC. None of the subsidiaries of
Southern Company (beside GPC) have been joined as Respondents in this proceeding. ALJ
Barnett
deferred ruling on this motion until the completion of the hearing.
Absent special circumstances, a parent corporation is not responsible
for
a subsidiary's violations of law. NLRB v. Fullerton Transfer & Storage Ltd., Inc., 910
F.2d
331 (6th Cir. 1990); Contractors, Laborers, Teamsters and Engineers Health and Welfare
Plan
v. Hroch, 757 F.2d 184, 190 (8th Cir. 1985); Hassell v. Harmon Foods, Inc., 484
F.2d
199 (6th Cir. 1972).
The courts have articulated a formulation to determine when a parent-
subsidiary relationship is not a "normal one" in assessing whether the two will be
considered as a single employer. Varnadore v. Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab., 92-CAA-2 & 5,
93-
CAA-1, 94-CAA-2 & 3 (ARB June 14, 1996); Arbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332 (6th
Cir.
1983); Fullerton Transfer, 910 F.2d 331.
The most important requirement is that there be sufficient indicia of an
interrelationship between the immediate corporate employer and the affiliated
corporation to justify the belief on the part of an aggrieved employee that the
affiliated corporation is jointly responsible for the acts of the immediate employer.
When such a degree of interrelatedness is present, we consider the departure from the
"normal" separate existence between entities an adequate reason to view
the subsidiary's conduct as that of both. . . . For guidance in testing the degree of
interrelationship, we look to the four-part test formulated by the NLRB and approved
by the [U.S.] Supreme Court . . . which assesses the degree of (1) interrelated
operations, (2) common management, (3) centralized control of labor relations, and
(4) common ownership. . . .
The showing required to warrant a finding of single-employer status has
been described as "highly integrated with respect to ownership and operations.
The test may also be satisfied by a showing that there is an amount of
"participation [that] is sufficient and necessary to the total employment
process," even absent "total control or ultimate authority over hiring
decisions."
Armbruster, 711 F.2d at 1337.
It is not necessary for all four criteria to be present, but the presiding judge must strike a
balance
among the criteria. Fullerton Transfer, 910 F.2d at 336; Baker v. Stuart
Braodcasting
Co., 560 F.2d 389, 392 (8th Cir. 1977). However, the key factor is the control over
elements
[Page 51]
of labor relations. Armbruster, 711 F.2d at 1337. For separate companies to be treated
as
a single employer, the Eleventh Circuit has held that there must be a showing that the separate
companies are "highly integrated with respect to ownership and operations" and has
used
the four-part test articulated above in order to make that determination. McKenzie v.
Davenport-
Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 933 (11th Cir. 1981) (quoting Fike v. Gold Kist,
Inc., 514 F. Supp. 722, 726 (N.D. Ala.), aff'd, 664 F.2d 295 (11th Cir. 1981)).
Similarly, a joint employer relationship is found when, despite the
absence
of common ownership, one entity effectively and actively participates in the control of labor
relations and working conditions of employees of the second entity. NLRB v. Western
Temporary Services, Inc., 821 F.2d 1258, 1266 (7th Cir. 1987). This determination is based
"largely on such factors as the supervision of the employees' day-to-day activities,
authority
to hire or fire employees, promulgation of work rules and conditions of employment, work
assignments, and issuance of operating instructions." W.W. Grainger, Inc. v.
NLRB,
860 F.2d 244 (7th Cir. 1988). In Lutheran Welfare Services v. NLRB, the U.S. Court
of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found for joint employer status between an employment agency
and
two child care facilities where the agency exercised control over the pay scales and employee
classification at the facilities; the agency had to approve all promotions and hiring at the
facilities;
the policies at the facilities had to be approved by the agency; the facilities were required to
submit
all personnel roosters, organizational charts and evaluations to the agency; and the agency
supervised
all facility directors. 607 F.2d 777 (7th Cir. 1979). Looking at similar factors, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit found no joint employer status where companies kept separate
time,
personnel and payroll records for their employees; one company paid hourly while the other paid
by the load; the companies maintained different insurance for their employees; and one company
paid retirement and sick pay while the other did not. NLRB v. Solid Waste Services, 38
F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 1994).
1. Interrelated Operations
Southern Company is a utility holding company with several power
company subsidiaries including Respondent. There exist various agreements between the
subsidiaries and between the parent and subsidiaries (CX-119).
2. Common Management
Franklin testified that GPC and its Board of Directors have no control
over
In 1995, the administration of human resources functions of all
subsidiaries was consolidated into Southern Company Services (SCS). Winkler testified that
SCS
was responsible for administrative functions only, as a cost reduction method. Each subsidiary
remained in control of hiring and firing criteria.
Franklin testified that Southern Management Council was created to
evaluate top employees in all Southern System subsidiaries. Dr. Davenport testified that there
was
some resistance to the management council's programs because the individual subsidiaries
wanted
to maintain more individual control. GPC still makes its own decisions regarding the hiring and
firing of employees. The programs created by the Management Council were informal, and were
made specific by individual managers within the system. It was Southern System policy to do a
system wide search for executives in level 17 (9) or above positions. However, the final decision
was entirely with the hiring corporation. On occasion, employees would be loaned to other
Southern
System companies, but an administrative billing system was in place to bill the borrowing
company
for the work performed by the loaned employee.
4. Common Ownership
Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Southern Company.
Franklin
testified that GPC issues its own securities, has its own Board of Directors and manages its own
properties. GPC has no control over the management or operations at other Southern System
companies.
5. Conclusion
I find nothing in the evidence presented which leads to the conclusion
that
the relationship between Southern Company and its subsidiaries is anything but a
"normal" one. Certainly, they share certain interests, as is part and parcel of such a
corporate arrangement. However, there is nothing here which amounts to a "special
circumstance" to permit joining the parent company. Fullerton Transfer, 910
The Secretary ordered "such further proceedings as may be
necessary to establish Complainant's complete remedy." Hobby v. Georgia Power
Co., 90-ERA-30 at 28 (Sec'y Aug. 4, 1995). Complainant argues the fashioning of a
complete
remedy requires that the entire Southern System be included in any ordered remedy. I disagree.
The
Secretary's order does not grant jurisdiction over parties who were not joined in the lawsuit. Nor
is
it dispositive in a review of the facts as to the nature of the inter-relationship between
subsidiaries
of Southern Company.
Upon review of the evidence and Complainant's failure to join other
parties, I find that the weight of the evidence does not support a finding of joint or single
employer
status. I will not, at this point in the litigation, join other parties to fashion a remedy. Therefore,
I
find that Respondent does not share single or joint employer status with any other Southern
System
company and Complainant is limited to a remedy from Respondent itself.103
B. Reinstatement or Front Pay
Reinstatement is the normal remedy for whistleblowers.
Creekmore
v. ABB Power Systems Energy Services, Inc., 93-ERA-24 (Dep. Sec'y Apr. 10, 1996).
Front
pay may be appropriate only in cases where antagonism between the parties would render
reinstatement ineffective. Goldstein v. Manhattan Industries, Inc., 758 F.2d 1435, 1449
(11th Cir., 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1005 (1985). However, the Secretary has noted that
tension
between the Complainant and former supervisors, observed by the ALJ, is not sufficient to
warrant
an award of front pay over reinstatement. Creekmore, 93-ERA-24 (Dep. Sec'y Feb. 14,
1996). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit explained the importance of
reinstatement, as opposed to merely monetary damages:
This rule of presumptive reinstatement is justified by reason as well as precedent.
When a person loses his job, it is at best disingenuous to say that money damages can
suffice to make that person whole. The psychological benefits of work are
intangible, yet they are real and cannot be ignored. Yet at the same time, there is a
high probability that reinstatement will engender personal friction of one sort or
another in almost every case in which a public employee is discharged . . . . Unless
we are willing to withhold full relief from all or most successful plaintiffs in
discharge cases, and we are not, we cannot allow actual or expected ill-feelings alone
[Page 54]
to justify nonreinstatement. We also note that reinstatement is an effective deterrent
in preventing employer retaliation against employees . . . . Allen v. Autauga
County Bd. Of Educ., 685 F.2d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 1982).
Complainant can be reinstated to a substantially similar position, if
the
position in which he served no longer exists. See, Creekmore, 93-ERA-24
(ARB
June 20, 1996) (Even after sale of a subsidiary the company that retained liability was obligated
to
reinstate the complainant to a substantially similar position.); DeFord v. Tennessee Valley
Authority, 81-ERA-1 (Sec'y Aug. 16, 1984) (The Secretary of Labor stated that, "[i]f
[complainant's] former position no longer exists or there is no vacancy, TVA shall apply to the
Administrative Law Judge for approval of the job in which it proposes to place DeFord with an
explanation of the duties, functions, responsibilities, physical location and working
conditions.").
Respondent points to Oliver v. Hydro-Vac Services, Inc.,
wherein complainant was denied reinstatement because the position had been eliminated.
However,
in that case the position was filled following Oliver's removal and was later eliminated because
of
restructuring. 91-SWD-1 at 2 (ALJ Feb. 19, 1997). In the instant matter, the restructuring is
inextricably entwined with the discriminatory act. This distinction is important. Although all
nuclear duties have been transferred from GPC to SONOPCO, NOCA was set up to be a liaison
between these two groups. There is no reason to believe such a liaison between these two
subsidiaries would no longer be useful. NOCA was eliminated as part of the discriminatory act
against Complainant and such elimination cannot be separated from the wrongful act. I do not
find
Respondent's argument, that there are no comparable positions available to Complainant,
credible.
It is undisputed that all of Respondent's nuclear positions have been transferred to SONOPCO.
However, Complainant's experience with Respondent is certainly transferrable to other areas of
Respondent's business. Respondent, itself, argues that non-nuclear positions with power utilities
are
the type of positions Complainant should have sought since his termination.
Courts have recognized that the level of a complainant's position are
important considerations in determining whether reinstatement is feasible. Coston v. Plitt
Theatres, Inc., 831 F.2d 1321, 1331 (7th Cir. 1987); Dickerson v. Deluxe Check,
703
F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir. 1983). Complainant held a general manager position prior to his
termination.
He seeks reinstatement into a position at a higher level within GPC. If reinstated, he would be in
a position of responsibility, presumably with considerable access to documents and facilities.
However, none of the executives who testified before ALJ Barnett expressed concerns about
Complainant's trustworthiness in an executive position. The only concerns expressed were with
[Page 55]
regard to Complainant's ability to fulfill his duties.
Franklin testified that it would be "very, very difficult" to
reintegrate Complainant into GPC. Franklin also indicated that it would be bad for morale to put
Complainant into a position above those who had been working with GPC continually. Franklin
and
Respondent miss the point of this proceeding. This matter was not remanded to find the path of
least
resistance for Respondent in compensating Complainant, but to make Complainant whole. The
Secretary of Labor found that Respondent discriminated against Complainant and Respondent
can
expect to make some sacrifices to correct its wrongdoing. I question whether Respondent finds it
good for morale to terminate employees who report violations to the NRC.
I find Respondent's argument that Complainant is not entitled to
reinstatement because of his loss of reputation due to his termination ironic. Respondent
terminated
Complainant because of protected activity, and now seeks to benefit from the fruits of its act of
wrong doing. Respondent points to court cases in which reinstatement has been denied due to
the
complainant's inability to perform the job sought. McKnight v. General Motors Corp.,
973
F.2d 1366 (7th Cir. 1992). Any loss of ability suffered by Complainant is due to Respondent's
unlawful termination. Complainant attempted to stay current with industry trends by reading
those
articles to which he had access. I will not allow Respondent to benefit from its act of
discrimination.
Dr. Davenport concluded that only two positions had opened since
Complainant's termination for which he would have been qualified and those positions were
filled
with individuals more qualified that Complainant. Dr. Davenport's study, like Folsom's, is
flawed
in that it failed to consider several positions. In Dr. Davenport's case, these positions were
specifically excluded from her search. It seems that Dr. Davenport created a report to reach the
conclusion most helpful to Respondent and I do not credit her testimony.
In any whistleblower proceeding in which reinstatement is at issue,
there
will be some evidence of animosity between the parties. That, in itself, cannot be a reason for
denying Complainant this remedy.
Complainant seeks reinstatement in a level 26 (13) position. He
recognizes that it will not be an easy transition into any reinstated position with Respondent.
However, he indicated that a clear message of support from his superiors would go a long way to
re-establishing his credibility in the industry. He further recognized that extensive training
would
be necessary upon his return to Respondent, because of changes in the industry.
[Page 56]
I do not find either of Complainant's methods of calculating back pay
and
reinstatement level reasonable. The tracking method attempts to track Bowers, an employee who
Franklin and Evans testified advanced at an unusual rate. The historical method also seems
unreasonable. In the five years prior to his termination Complainant advanced two (one) levels.
Under the historical model, Complainant argues in the eight years since his termination he would
have advanced six (three) levels. This does not seem reasonable, especially in light of corporate
down-sizing and reductions in middle management positions in all industries during this period.
GPC has experienced down-sizing and Complainant held an executive
level position. Wilkinson testified that most employees who reach a level 20 (10) position do not
advance as there are very few positions in levels above 20 (10). It is impossible to determine
with
absolute certainty what would have happened in the last eight and a half years had Complainant
not
been unlawfully terminated. It is possible Complainant could have received a promotion in that
time. It is equally possible that, even absent discrimination, he would have accepted a position at
a lower level of compensation. I find it reasonable to assume, in fashioning a complete remedy
for
Complainant, that he would have remained at the same level for the entire period.
Therefore, I find that Complainant is entitled to reinstatement in a
level
20 (10) position with all benefits accorded others at the same level including, but not limited to,
salary, benefits, office space, parking privileges, staff, and training opportunities.
C. Monetary Damages
1. Back Pay
The purpose of a back pay award is to make Complainant whole, that
is
to restore him to the same position he would have been in but for discrimination by Respondent.
Blackburn v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 86-ERA-4 (Sec'y Oct 20, 1991). Back pay is
measured as the difference "between actual earnings for the period and those she would
have
earned absent the discrimination by the defendant." Horn v. Duke Homes, 755
F.2d
599, 606 (7th Cir. 1979). Complainant has the burden of establishing the amount of back pay
that
Respondent owes. Pillow v. Bechtel Constr., Inc., 87-ERA-35 at 13 (Sec'y July 19,
1993).
However, because back pay promotes the remedial statutory purpose of making whole the
victims
of discrimination, "unrealistic exactitude is not required" in calculating back pay, and
"uncertainties in determining what an employee would have earned but for the
discrimination
should be resolved against the discriminating [party]. Johnson v. Bechtel Constr. Co.,
95-ERA-11 at 2 (Sec'y Sept. 11, 1995); EEOC v. Enterprise Ass'n Steamfitters Local No.
638, 542 F.2d 579, 587 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 911 (1977),
[Page 57]
quotingHairston v. McLean Trucking, 520 F.2d 226, 233 (4th Cir. 1975). The
courts permit the construction of a hypothetical employment history for Complainant to
determine
the appropriate amount of back pay. UTU v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 532 F.2d 336
(4th Cir.
1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 934 (1976).
Complainant is entitled to all promotions and salary increases which
he
would have obtained, but for the illegal discharge. Robinson v. City of Fairfield, 750
F.2d
1507, 1512 (11th Cir. 1985). I do not credit Complainant's testimony that he would have been
promoted each time he reached the top of the salary scale for each level. On this issue I find
Wilkinson more credible. He testified that it is not automatic for an employee to receive a level
increase upon reaching the maximum salary for his/her level. He indicated that such a promotion
required the opening of another position at a higher level.
Back pay may be calculated "using the wages of a representative
employee, which can be an acceptable method of approximating what a complainant would have
earned but for the discrimination." Hamilton v. Sharp Air Freight Services, Inc.,
91-
STA-49 at 2-3 (Sec'y Nov. 25, 1992). As stated above, I do not find Bowers to be a comparable
employee and do not find this method of back pay calculation is of assistance in reaching a
reasonable conclusion.
Once the Complainant establishes the gross amount of back pay due,
the
burden shifts to the Respondent to prove facts which would mitigate that liability. NLRB v.
Browne, 890 F.2d 605, 608 (2d Cir. 1989).
Mitigation of damages by seeking suitable employment is a duty of
victims of employment discrimination. Interim earning or an amount earnable with reasonable
diligence are reductions to a back pay award. A complainant may be "expected to check
want
ads, register with employment agencies, and discuss potential opportunities with friends and
acquaintances." Doyle v. Hydro Nuclear Services, 89-ERA-22 (ARB Sept. 6,
[Page 58]
1996),
quotingHelbing v. Unclaimed Salvage & Freight Co., Inc., 489 F.Supp.
956-963
(E.D. Pa. 1989), quotingSprogis v. United Air Lines, 517 F.2d 387, 392 (7th
Cir.
1975). Respondent has the burden of establishing that the back pay award should be reduced
because Complainant did not exercise diligence in seeking and obtaining other employment.
West v. Systems Applications International, 94-CAA-15 (Sec'y Apr. 19, 1995).
Complainant is not held to "the highest standards of diligence," but to reasonable
efforts
considering the "individual characteristics of the Claimant and the job market."
Rasimas v. Michigan Dep't of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614, 624 (6th Cir. 1983).
The Secretary held that any offers of employment by GPC, prior to
Complainant's termination, were hollow and unauthorized and that they were not for comparable
employment so Complainant was under no obligation to accept them. Hobby v. Georgia
Power
Company, 90-ERA-30 at 26, (Sec'y Aug. 4, 1995). Respondent offers this same evidence to
show that Complainant did not properly mitigate his damages by refusing offers of employment
with
GPC. There were no meaningful offers of employment with GPC. It is illogical to find
that
Complainant failed to mitigate damages on the basis of refusing non-existent offers. Therefore, I
find this testimony unconvincing. Along a similar vein, GPC points to Complainant refusal to
accept
a severance package which required signing a release and settlement of all claims. Complainant
is
not required to waive this claim to show mitigation.
Comparable employment must afford Complainant with virtually
identical
promotional opportunities, compensation, job responsibilities, working conditions and status.
Rasimas, 714 F.2d at 624. "The un- or underemployed complainant need not go
into
another line of work, accept a demotion, or take a demeaning position." Ford Motor
Co.
v. E.E.O.C., 458 U.S. 219, 102 S. Ct. 3057, 3065 (1982), SeeOFCCP v.
WMATA, 84-OFC-8 at 3 (Sec'y Aug. 23, 1989).
The United States Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs seeking an
award
of back pay have a duty to minimize damages "by being reasonably diligent in seeking
employment substantially equivalent to the position . . . lost." Ford Motor
Co., 458 U.S. 219 (emphasis added). To meet its burden, Respondent must show that there
were substantially equivalent positions available, and Complainant failed to use
reasonable
diligence in seeking these positions. Rasimas v. Mich. Dept. Of Mental Health, 714
[Page 59]
F.2d
614, 624 (6th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added) citingSias v. City Demonstration
Agency, 588 F.2d 692, 696 (9th Cir. 1979); Oliver v. Hydro-Vac Services, Inc.,
91-
SWD-1 (ALJ Feb. 19, 1997), aff'd in part (ARB Jan. 6, 1998).
Complainant testified that his time spent pursuing this matter severely
hindered his employment search capabilities. "An employee who has been the target of an
unfair labor practice need not choose between mitigation of damages and the vindication of his
statutory rights." NLRB v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 604 F.2d 375, 378 (5th
Cir.
1979) (The complainant did not seek alternate employment for nine months because of required
attendance at hearings and depositions.); Moyer v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.,
89-STA-
7 at 8 (Sec'y Aug. 21, 1995). The Eleventh Circuit has held that a plaintiff's duty to seek
employment diligently is not extinguished by his tenacious pursuit of the former position through
legal recourse, nor is such duty extinguished by his subsequent interest in non-employment
pursuits.
In addition, the Eleventh Circuit has held that, although a Title VII plaintiff is not obligated
initially
to seek work outside of his field to mitigate damages, such plaintiff becomes obligated to seek
employment in another field once he has decided that no other job in his field would suit him.
Walters v. City of Atlanta, 803 F.2d 1135, 1145 (11th Cir. 1986).
An employee can abandon the search after a reasonable period without
jeopardizing the right to receive full back pay. Nord v. United States Steel Corp., 758
F.2d
1462, 1471-2 (11th Cir. 1985) (After Nord unsuccessfully searched for employment for two and
a
half years, she sought to secure other future employment); Cf.Brady v. Thurston
Motor
Lines, 753 F.2d 1269 (4th Cir.1985)(plaintiff who unsuccessfully searched for substantially
equivalent employment for one year was justified in accepting lesser employment and going to
school full time, even though he no longer actively sought employment substantially equivalent
to
job he lost due to discrimination.); J.H. Rutter Rex Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. NLRB,
473
F.2d 223, 242 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 822, 94 S.Ct. 120, 38 L.Ed.2d 55 (1973)
("by 'lowering their sights' and accepting what might have been the best job available, the
claimants were doing all that could reasonably be expected of them by way of mitigation").
Respondent offers the testimony and report of James Cimino to show
both
prongs of the Rasimas test - that positions were available and the Complainant failed to
use reasonable diligence to obtain these positions. Rasimas, 714 F.2d at 624. As an
initial
matter, I question Respondent's motives in choosing not to provide the Secretary of Labor's
[Page 60]
August
1995 decision to Cimino in forming his opinion. This act corroborates the conclusion of Dr.
Jackson
that Cimino was merely creating research to achieve a foregone conclusion. I find Dr.
Jackson's analysis of Cimino's methodology credible. Therefore, I give little weight to the
conclusions reached by Cimino. However, in the interests of creating a thorough record I address
those conclusions.
Cimino's statement that whistleblowing activity could be seen as a
"plus" to a future employer is completely incredible. The research and testimony of
both
Dr. Glazer and Dr. Soeken rebut this baseless statement. In addition, ADM Wilkinson, who has
worked in the nuclear industry testified that whistleblowing activity was, in fact, a
"minus" to future employers. Griswold also testified that the events leading to one's
termination were certainly relevant in obtaining future employment and that a pending
discrimination lawsuit against one's former employer could be "very negative."
Griswold and ADM Wilkinson both indicated that the nuclear industry was particularly tight knit
where top executives at different companies often communicated with each other.
Cimino testified that through diligent search, Complainant could have
obtained suitable employment within one year of his termination. However, Cimino indicated
that
90 percent of the executive positions in the power industry were filled through networking.
Complainant had seen the negative effects of his attempt at networking. Former supervisors
would
not even return his phone calls much less provide him with an advantage in obtaining future
employment. Griswold testified that he also expected Complainant to be successful in his job
search, and was surprised when he was not offered even an interview through his work with R.L.
Stevens. I credit Griswold's testimony concerning Complainant's efforts. It is true that most of
his
information was received through Complainant, but Griswold has nineteen years of experience in
this field and did not notice any of the signs of an individual who was failing to implement the
marketing plan.
Addressing Cimino's suggestions, Griswold stated that it was not
productive to make follow-up calls to recruiters and employers targeted from advertisements, and
to place "situation wanted" advertisements. Further, Griswold indicated that
"cold
calling" potential employers was ineffective.
Cimino's "strawman" study suffered from major methodological defects,
pointed
out by Dr. Jackson. The study did not show indicia of reliability and validity. Most notably, the
"strawman" was described as being down-sized. Even describing Complainant in
this
most favorable light, only seven of 114 companies were even interested in seeing his resume.
Further, I agree with Griswold that it would not have been in
Complainant's best interest to respond to most of the advertisements listed by Cimino. Many of
[Page 61]
the
positions listed by Cimino are at a substantial pay cut and not in the power industry, which is a
substantial part of Complainant's experience. He is not initially required to seek these positions.
Many of the advertisements are so vague as to be impossible to determine if they are for
comparable
employment. Dr. Staller states that Complainant could have obtained employment within one
month
of his termination at a salary of $70,000, which is 30% less than he was earning with
Respondent.
This is not comparable employment. He based these conclusions, in part, on the Survey of
Displaced Workers. Dr. Jackson testified that employees in Complainant's situation, terminated
whistleblowers, would not be included in this data and it was, thus, only a "best
case"
scenario. In addition, Dr. Staller indicated that his findings, based on assumptions and statistics,
was
not as reliable as fact specific conclusions.
Respondent offered complainant the services of an executive search
firm,
Payne-Lendman. Complainant did not accept this offer as he was under the impression that to do
so required his waiving any causes of action against Respondent. In addition, Complainant did
not
trust Respondent due to its recent actions and did not want to rely on an agent of Respondent to
find
him a new position. I find Complainant's conclusions, regarding this offer, reasonable.
Respondent
claims that there was no contingency on the acceptance of this term, but it is not clear from any
of
the testimony or documents produced that such was expressed to Complainant. It was reasonable
of Complainant to conclude that this offer was part and parcel of the severance package offered.
Complainant did seek the services of an executive search firm, R.L.
Stevens. Complainant testified that through R.L. Stevens he sent out resumes, cover letters and
marketing letters to other executive search firms, but did not keep all copies of such letters. I
find
this testimony credible. At the time of his involvement with R.L. Stevens, in 1992, Complainant
had
no idea that the Secretary would remand this matter and he would be asked to produce copies of
all
employment search contacts, although Griswold did advise him to do so. Complainant's
assertions
were corroborated by Griswold who testified that the listed applications amounted to only 1/3 of
those sent by Complainant. Griswold worked closely with Complainant and found him to be
conscientious and hard-working.
Complainant testified that pursuit of this lawsuit was full-time
endeavor.
As stated above, I find that Complainant has not shown that he would
have
received any promotions had he not been terminated in 1990.
The parties have stipulated to the interest rates on any past due
amounts.
Complainant has calculated the interest on a compounded daily basis. Interest on back wages is
calculated in accordance with 29 C.F.R. §20.58(a) at the rate specified in the Internal
Revenue
Code, 26, U.S.C. §6621, and is compounded quarterly. Willy v. The Coastal
Corporation
and Coastal States Management Co., 85-CAA-1 at 12 (ALJ May 8, 1997); OFCCP v.
WMATA, 84-OFC-8 (Ass't Sec'y Aug. 23, 1989), motion for recon. den., (Ass't
Sec'y
Nov. 17, 1989); Blackburn v. Metric Constructors, 86-ERA-4 (Sec'y Oct. 30, 1991).
2. Vacation
Time
Complainant seeks reinstatement of his vacation time instead of
reimbursement for the cash value of this time. I find that such action is not compatible with
Complainant's goals of reintegrating into Respondent's organization. It seems most reasonable to
provide Complainant with the cash value of his lost vacation time.
3. Car
Allowance
Prior to being discharged Complainant had use of a company car. The
company car benefit included the car, gasoline for the car and maintenance. Had Complainant
remained with GPC beyond April 2, 1990, he would have been assigned a mid-sized car from
1990
through October 31, 1993, when GPC discontinued its practice of assigning vehicles to Company
officers and managers. If Complainant was still employed by the company at that time, he would
[Page 66]
have received a payment of $7,400 plus $2,957 to cover federal and state taxes on the $7400
payment. Complainant was assessed (as additional income) for his automobile in 1987-1989 as
follows: 1987 - $3520; 1988 - $3507; and 1989 - $3442 (Stipulation No. 9). Respondent does
not
challenge the car allowance which Complainant has calculated is due him. Respondent's Brief p.
63.
4. Medical
Benefits
Complainant is entitled to compensation for medical expenses incurred
because of termination of medical benefits, including premiums for medical coverage.
Creekmore, 93-ERA-24 at 12 (Dep. Sec'y Feb. 14, 1996). Complainant should be
compensated for the actual cost of health insurance since his unlawful termination.
5. Life
Insurance
Complainant should be compensated for the actual cost of life
insurance
since his unlawful termination.
6. Retirement Programs, ESP, ESOP,
Stock Options
Complainant is entitled to full restoration of retirement and pension
benefits and any stock option plans that were adversely affected by the discriminatory conduct.
Boytin v. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., 94-ERA-32 at 12 (Sec'y Oct. 20, 1995).
Any
employee contributions to these plans will be paid by Complainant within ten days of receipt of
the
back pay award.
7. Productivity
Improvement Plan (PIP); Performance Pay Plan (PPP)
Complainant calculates his PPP award equivalent to the highest
awarded
that year. I find that unreasonable. Complainant should receive PIP and PPP bonuses equal to
the
average award provided to level 20(10) employees for the time period since his termination.
8. Compensatory
Damages
Where a violation has been found, section 5851(b)(2)(B) of the act
permits
the award of compensatory damages in addition to back pay. 42 U.S.C. §5851 (b)(2)(B);
29
C.F.R. §24.6; Blackburn v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 86-ERA-4 at 9 (Sec'y Oct.
30,
1991). Such awards may be awarded for emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and
humiliation. The testimony of medical or psychiatric experts is not necessary, but it can
strengthen
The Deputy Secretary has found that penalties due to early distribution
of retirement funds are not compensable because Complainant had "the choice" of
allowing the funds to remain in the accounts. Creekmore, 93-ERA-24 (Dep. Sec'y Feb.
14,
1996).111
Complainant requests various affirmative relief necessary in achieving
a
"complete remedy." First, Complainant requests expungement and reconstruction of
his
employment records. Respondent should remove any negative references or commentaries
regarding
Complainant's work performance in connection with his discharge. See, Doyle v. Hydro
Nuclear
Services, 89-ERA-22 at 10 (ARB Sept. 6, 1996); Smith v. Littenberg, 92-ERA-52
at 5-6 (Sec'y Sept. 6, 1995). However, I do not find it necessary or proper to order Respondent to
create a false employment report.
Complainant requests that Respondent issue a "welcome
back" memorandum to announce his return to the company. Complainant testified that this
[Page 70]
was common practice in the corporation. As stated above, Complainant is to be reinstated with
the
same benefits and acknowledgments as any other new level 20 (10) position. This includes the
issuance of such a memorandum.
It is not unusual for a court to order that the decision in employment
discrimination cases be posted at the work facilities. Simmons, et al. v. Florida Power
Corp., 89-ERA-28 & 29 at 22 (ALJ Dec. 13, 1989); Wells v. Kansas Gas & Electric
Co., 83-ERA-12 at 12 (Sec'y June 14, 1984); Tritt v. Fluor Constructors, Inc., 88-
ERA-29 at 6 (Sec'y March 16, 1995). In the instant case, I find that this is not in the best
interests
of Complainant.
Complainant requests that Respondent send an apology or this
recommended decision and order to all employees or publish same in the company publications.
Such would defeat Complainant's goal of throwing off the label of whistleblower and is likely to
cause further animosity between Complainant and employees of Respondent. Complainant
further
seeks an order for Respondent to refrain from derogatory communications regarding
Complainant.
I find such an order unnecessary. Respondent is forbidden by the very act under which
Complainant
is currently suing from discriminating against Complainant because of his whistleblowing
activities.
This prohibition continues upon Complainant's reinstatement.
F. Costs
1. Attorney
Fees
On June 26, 1998, I issued a scheduling order regarding the filing of
attorney fee petitions and responses. The parties should adhere to this order.
2. Other
Costs
Complainant is entitled to job search expenses for mailing, telephone
and
travel. Creekmore, 93-ERA-24 at 14 (Dep. Sec'y Feb. 14, 1996). Complainant is also
entitled to costs for transportation to, and lodging and meals while attending the DOL hearing.
Id.
Complainant is entitled to reimbursement for any employment search
costs including the $2,450.00 paid to R.L. Stevens. Complainant is not entitled to the $1225.00
still
owed to R.L. Stevens as he is no longer in need of their services and his contract with them was
terminated upon his failure to make the final payment.
[Page 71]
RECOMMENDED
ORDER
It is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
1. Complainant is entitled to immediate reinstatement to a level 20 (10) position with
Respondent.
2. Complainant is entitled to reinstatement of all perquisites and benefits of a level
20
(10) position, including, but not limited to, medical and life insurance, stock options, retirement
programs, ESP, ESOP, PIP, PPP, office space, parking privileges, staff, "welcome
back"
memo, and training opportunities.
3. Complainant will be provided with any training necessary to re-assimilate him
into
his position.
4. Respondent shall provide Complainant with any training necessary to the
completion of his duties in his reinstated position.
5. Complainant is entitled to back pay equal to the midpoint of a level 20 (10)
position
from the date of his termination to the date of reinstatement.112
NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order will automatically become the
final order of the Secretary unless, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §24.8, a petition for review is
[Page 72]
timely
filed with the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, Room S-4309,
Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20210. Such a
petition
for review must be received by the Administrative Review Board within ten business days of the
date of this Recommended Decision and Order, and shall be served on all parties and on the
Chief
Administrative Law Judge. See 29 C.F.R. §§24.8 and 24.9, as amended by
63
Fed. Reg. 6614 (1998).
DANIEL A.
SARNO, JR.
Administrative
Law Judge
DAS/pak
Newport News, Virginia
[ENDNOTES]
1The following abbreviations will be
used as
citations to the record:
CX - Complainant's Exhibits
RXR - Respondent's Exhibits on Remand
RX - Respondent's Exhibits
Tr. - Transcript.
Any citations to the briefs of the parties are to the page number is it
appears in WordPerfect
7.0 and not necessarily in the printed copy of the brief provided to the presiding judge.
2After Complainant's termination,
GPC
reorganized their compensation level distinctions (Tr. 345). Hereinafter, the old level will be in
the text with the new
level in parentheses.
3Complainant indicated this was
commonly
referred to as the Edwin I. Hatch Visitor Center at Georgia Power Company (Tr. 31).
4The other members of this
committee were
the President, Mr. Hatch, Executive VP, Joe Browder, two Senior VPs, Robert Scherer and
Harold McKenzie, and the
VP of Marketing, along with several others including Charlie Minors and Hal Wansley (Tr. 35,
38).
Although Complainant worked solely for the ad hoc committee, his
official title remained
Director of the Information Center (Tr. 628-9).
5Complainant testified that ADM
Wilkinson
had been one of two individuals responsible for development of nuclear propulsion systems
within the Navy. He was
the first skipper of the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear powered vessel (Tr. 57).
6Complainant testified that the
"assistant to" position was a career-building position and offered several examples of
individuals who had
been in this position and moved on to high executive positions within GPC (Tr. 89). Miller,
himself, had been an
assistant to the Senior VP at Alabama Power and was promoted to Senior VP. Grady Baker had
been assistant to the
President at GPC and later became a Senior Executive VP. Pierce Head had also been an
assistant to the President of
GPC and became Senior VP of Human Resources (Tr. 89).
7In addition to GPC, subsidiaries
of The
Southern Company include Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Energia De Nuevo
Leon, S.A. de C.V.,
Mississippi Power Company, Mobile Energy Services Holdings, Inc., Southern Communications
Services, Inc.,
Southern Company Services, Inc., Southern Energy, Inc., Southern Electric Railroad Company,
Southern Nuclear
Operating Company and The Southern Development and Investment Group, Inc.
Complainant testified that in 1985, Southern Company owned GPC,
Alabama Power,
Mississippi Power, and Gulf Power (Tr. 91).
8Baker replaced Miller as
President
sometime in 1987 (Tr. 108).
9In 1989, Complainant raised
questions about
who Pat McDonald, Executive VP of Nuclear and GPC's representative to NUMARC, reported
to and whether practices
of GPC might be in violation of the law (Tr. 258). Following this, Complainant's relationship to
McDonald deteriorated
(Tr. 258).
10I note here that the Secretary
of Labor
has ruled on Respondent's decision to move Complainant's office, parking privileges and remove
his building access.
Respondent's decisions adversely affected the privileges of Complainant's employment and
were
motivated at least in part by Complainant's protected activity. Complainant filed this ERA
claim on
February 6 and his office was moved thereafter, on February 9. His parking and access
privileges
were changed on February 19 (citations omitted). Hobby v. Georgia Power
Company, 90-
ERA-30 at 27, (Sec'y Aug. 4, 1995)
11It was Complainant's
understanding
that the outplacement services were subject to this restriction as well. However, Williams
testified that this was not the
case (Tr. 663). Complainant made no attempt to determine the availability of these services
absent the signing of a
release (Tr. 665).
12Complainant was familiar
with the area
in which Oglethorpe did business and knew many of the executives at the company (Tr. 159).
13Complainant testified that he
could not
remember the gentleman's name, but that he was an acquaintance of Mrs. Shingler (Tr. 168).
14Prior to his termination by
Respondent,
Complainant had been offered the position of VP of power production at Oglethorpe, a position
to which the program
director reported (Tr. 1041).
15Transcripts of the taped
conversations
appear in CX-59.
In June 1997, Counsel for Respondent sent Smith a letter confirming
an earlier conversation
with him in which Smith indicated that the transcript was not inaccurate, but noted that he had
never led Complainant
to believe that he would have a position at Oglethorpe (RXR-18, 2). Smith further stated that
Complainant would
"be on his own in obtaining a position" at Oglethorpe (RXR-27, 2).
A similar letter from Counsel was sent to Self confirming that Self had
never offered
Complainant a position and was not aware that any such offer had been made (RXR-32). Self
further clarified that he
would not have recommended Complainant for a nuclear position at Plant Vogtle as Complainant
did not have the
technical experience for such a position (RXR-32A).
In a letter to Counsel for Respondent, Tom Kilgore stated that if
Complainant had been the
most qualified applicant for an open position, he saw no reason why he would not have been
hired. However, Kilgore
did not recall expressing interest in hiring Complainant (RXR-33A).
16At the time of the hearing on
remand,
Complainant had paid R.L. Stevens only $2,450.00.
17Complainant testified that
this seminar
was attended by individuals at different stages of the career ladder. Not all the people in
attendance were looking for
executive position as Complainant was (Tr. 286).
18Complainant did not save
copies of
all of these correspondence (Tr. 292). Complainant testified that he did not receive copies of all
letters sent out by R.L.
Stevens on his behalf (Tr. 293).
Complainant testified that he received confirmation from Executive
Recruiters and Heidrick
& Struggles, both executive search firms.
19RXR-22 contains thirty-three
letters
sent by Complainant as contacts under the direction of R.L. Stevens (RXR-22, 179-229).
Complainant testified on
cross-examination that these were not all of the job contacts he had during this time. He
indicated that he would not
save copies of all letters as he often used a form cover letter and merely changed small portions
(Tr. 1105).
Complainant testified that he did not always receive copies of letters prepared by R.L. Stevens
(Tr. 1107-8).
21Complainant's testimony and
CX-72
reference applications to the following:
1. Paul, Hastings,Janofsky & Walker - Complainant applied to be administrator of this
law firm law firm and
Smith agreed to be a reference for that application in May 1991 (CX-72, 145). However, the
firm decided to hire an
individual with more pertinent experience (Tr. 264-6; CX-72, 153). In his resume to this firm,
Complainant explained
his litigation with GPC because the firm was involved tangentially through Smith (Tr. 1017);
2. Oglethorpe Power Corporation - Complainant replied to an advertisement for the
position of program director,
power production in August 1991 (CX-72, 154);
3. Resolution Trust Corporation - Complainant applied for the position of senior
contracts specialist in October
1991 (CX-72, 164);
4. The Carter Center in Atlanta - An acquaintance wrote a letter of recommendation
and introduction for Hobby
to President Carter in March 1992 (Tr. 271-2; CX-72, 174). He obtained an interview with the
Carter Center, but they
had no positions open at that time for which he was qualified (Tr. 273);
5. Hayes Microcomputer Products - Complainant replied to an advertisement for the
position of executive
administrative assistant in the office of the President in June 1992 (Tr. 303; CX-72, 175);
6. John Sutton Associates Consultants, Inc. - Complainant replied to an advertisement
for the director of
operations in June 1992 (Tr. 333; CX-72, 176)
7.. Complainant replied to an advertisement for VP and general manager for a medical
device group in June 1992
(CX-72, 178);
8. In June 1992, Complainant sent an identical letter seeking a position similar to
executive assistant to a president
to the American Group Practice, Inc.; Chanko-Ward, Ltd.; Hyman, Mackenzie & Partners, Inc.;
Richard Kove
Associates, Inc.; The Mercer Group; PROSource, Inc.; Shaffer Consulting Group; Kimball Shaw
Associates; Egon
Zehnder International; Spencer Stuart & Associates; Russell Reynolds Associates; and three
other prospective
employers (CX-72, 180-1);
9. Complainant replied to an advertisement for the position of chief operating officer
in June 1992 (CX-72, 182-
3);
10. Montgomery Ventures, Ltd. - Complainant replied to an advertisement for a CEO
in June 1992 (Tr. 333; CX-
72, 184);
11. Complainant replied to an advertisement for the position of general manager for a
manufacturer of technical
products in June 1992 (CX-72, 187);
12. Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc. - Complainant sent his resume to this executive
recruiting firm (CX-72,
189);
13. Heidrick & Struggles - Complainant sent his resume to this executive search firm
(CX-72, 190);
14. Egan, Zehnder International - Complainant sent his resume to this search firm in
June 1992 (CX-72, 191);
15. Complainant applied for the position of administrator in central Europe for an
international law firm in June
1992 (CX-72, 192);
16. USO - Complainant applied for the position of director in July 1992 (Tr. 334;
CX-72, 194);
17. Tennessee Valley Authority - Complainant contacted John Waters regarding a
position with the Edison
Project in July 1992 (Tr. 308-9; CX-72, 198). ADM Wilkinson also spoke to Mr. Waters of
TVA on Complainant's
behalf (Tr. 309);
18. Active Parenting Publishers - Complainant responded to an advertisement for the
position of general manager
in September 1992 (CX-72, 201-2);
19. Complainant responded to an advertisement in The Wall Street Journal for the
position of aviation executive
in September 1992 (CX-72, 203);
20. CI Music - Complainant responded to an advertisement for the position of general
manager in September
1992 (CX-72, 205);
21. Ionpure Technologies - Complainant applied for the position of director of national
field service and
operations in September 1992 (CX-72, 207);
22. Fox-Morris Executive Search - September 1992 (CX-72, 211);
23. Fannie Mae - Complainant applied for the position of contracts administrator and
manager of purchasing in
October 1992 (Tr. 336; CX-72, 215, 219);
24. Oak Ridge Associated Universities - Complainant applied for the position of VP,
division director of
administrative services in October 1992 (Tr. 336; CX-72, 222);
25. Dyncorp - Complainant replied to an advertisement for the position of regional
director in November 1992
(Tr. 337; CX-72, 226);
26. CEXEC, Inc. - Complainant applied for the position of project manager in
November 1992 (Tr. 337; CX-72,
228);
27. MARTA Recruiting - Complainant applied for the position of manager of
contracts in January 1993 (Tr. 337;
CX-72, 233);
28. CHA of American Search Committee - Complainant replied to an advertisement
for the position of president
and CEO for Combined Health Appeal of America in February 1993 (Tr. 338; CX-72, 236);
29. Compuware - Complainant sent his resume in March 1993 (Tr. 338; CX-72, 240);
30. CARE - Complainant applied for the position of director of communications in
March 1993 (Tr. 339; CX-72,
241);
31. Lowerman-Haney, Inc. - Complainant responded to an advertisement for the
position of VP of human
resources in April 1993 (Tr. 339; CX-72, 244);
32. Boreham International - Complainant applied for the position of human resources
director in May 1993 (Tr.
339; CX-72, 246);
33. Checkmate Electronics, Inc. - Complainant applied for the position of VP of
operations in June 1993 (CX-72,
248);
34. The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. - Complainant applied for the position of
executive director of the
Plastics Pipe Institute in August 1993 (Tr. 339; CX-72, 249);
35. Complainant responded to an advertisement in the Atlanta Journal/Constitution for
the position of director
of investor relations and corporate communications in August 1993 (CX-72, 252);
36. American Institute of Architects - Complainant applied for the position of
executive VP and testified that he
researched this firm extensively and wrote a three (3) page letter as cover for his resume in
November 1993 (Tr. 306-7;
CX-72, 255-61);
37. United States Enrichment Corporation - Complainant applied for the position of
regulatory assurance and
policy director in January 1994 (Tr. 311; CX-72, 263). Complainant discussed this position with
the Executive VP,
George Rifakes. Rifakes indicated that he needed to fill the position as a liaison to the NRC as
soon as possible. (Tr.
311-2) Complainant was not offered this position (Tr. 314);
38. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - Complainant applied for the position
of business manager/senior
manager (Tr. 311, 314; CX-72, 272-3);
39. Siemens Power Corp. - Complainant responded to an advertisement for the
position of manager of customer
service and contract administration in February 1994 (Tr. 340; CX-72, 274); AND
40. Alpha Enterprises - Complainant applied for the position of an executive in July
1992 (Tr. 340; CX-72,
276).
22Complainant testified that the
temporary
agency was named either Temp Force or Talent Force (Tr. 318).
24The summary of damages in
CX-132-Q
is based on the tracking method of base salary calculation (Tr. 611-2).
25On cross-examination,
Complainant
testified that his preference is to return to work as opposed to front pay. However, he admitted
that, depending on the
specific terms, front pay may be acceptable (Tr. 625-6). Complainant was unaware as to what
officer position an
employee at level 26 (13) would occupy nor how many individuals at GPC occupied level 26
(13) positions (Tr. 1174).
26As of September 1, 1998,
Complainant
calculates his back pay at ,114,363.22 plus interest (CX-132-G, 43). The parties have
stipulated to the interest rate
on any awards (Stipulation No. 8). To reach this amount Complainant calculated his average
annual salary increase
(7.920015%) from 1985 to 1989 and applied this increase for each year since Complainant was
terminated (CX-132-G,
1). This amount was then decreased by his actual earnings since his termination (CX-132-G, 2).
In the alternative, Complainant testified that his back pay be
determined by tracking the base
salary of a comparable employee, William Paul Bowers (CX-132-L, 1). In 1990-1, Bowers
served as the manager of
marketing services for GPC. Prior to his termination, Complainant was the General Manager of
NOCA (Tr. 586-7).
Complainant testified that his strengths, weaknesses, and experience were similar to Bowers,
although Bowers was in
marketing and Complainant in power generation (Tr. 590-1). Complainant had never met
Bowers (Tr. 1180).
Complainant calculated his earnings and promotions by tracking the earning and promotions of
Bowers (Tr. 594-8; CX-
77; CX-78). Using this method, Complainant seeks ,203,720.56 plus interest as of September
1, 1998 (CX-132-L,
45).
The parties stipulated to Complainant's base salary at termination and
his earnings from other
employers since that time (Stipulation Nos. 2, 3, & 7).
Salary increases become effective March 1 of each year (except 1990
when they became
effective April 1) (Tr. 548).
27Complainant seeks 19 weeks
of
vacation (presuming the final decision is issued in 1998) (CX-132-A).
28Complainant seeks $3,605.31
(CX-132-
B). Complainant testified that he did not make the final payment to R.L. Stevens because he did
not have the money.
However, R.L. Stevens had informed Complainant that he did not have to make this final
payment because they had
been unable to find him a position (Tr. 541). Complainant did not keep receipts for all his job
search expenses, such
as mileage and postage (Tr. 542).
29Complainant seeks $314.11
plus
interest (CX-132-C, 41).
30Complainant liquidated 3,278
shares
of Southern Company stock to pay living expenses following his termination (Tr. 501).
Complainant asks that the
money from the sale of these stocks be reinvested and capitalized and subject to stock splits as if
it had not been
liquidated and that he be reimbursed in stock rather than cash (Tr. 504). See infra notes 33, 34,
35, & 36. Complainant
seeks $6,345.12 plus interest for tax penalties (CX-132-D)
31Complainant testified that,
from 1986
on, GPC provided him with a mid-size car, gasoline, and maintenance (Tr. 514). Complainant
seeks reimbursement
for the prorated value of this perk from 1990 to 1993. In 1993, GPC discontinued this program
and paid a one-time
sum of $7,400.00 plus $2,957.00 (for taxes on the $7,400.00) to employees with company
provided vehicles (Tr. 515;
CX-83). Complainant seeks $23,721.27 as reimbursement for loss of this perk (CX-132-E, 1).
See Stipulation
No. 9.
32Under COBRA, Complainant
maintained his health insurance with Respondent at cost. Following expiration of these benefits,
Complainant obtained
health insurance with Acordia Insurance Company until May 1993. Complainant was without
health insurance from
May 1993 until September 1993, when he became employed with UPS (Tr. 524-8). Prior to his
termination,
Respondent paid for an annual physical to its executives (Tr. 532). As of September 1, 1998,
Complainant seeks
$20,984.21 in medical/life insurance benefits, plus interest (CX-132-F, 44)
33Complainant testified that the
PIP
bonus was awarded to senior people at GPC. Prior to his termination Complainant had received
this bonus (Tr. 563).
The parties stipulated to the method of award and calculation for PIP awards (Stipulation No. 4).
Because PIP awards
are based in part on salary, Complainant's calculations are based on his base salary and level as
indicated in CX-132-G
and CX-132-L(Tr. 565). As of September 1, 1998, Complainant seeks $303,574.65 in PIP
bonuses plus interest under
the historical model and $369,370.70 under the tracking model (CX-132-H, 42; CX-132-M-42).
See notes 30, 34, 35
& 36.
34The parties stipulated to the
method
of calculation for PPP awards and to the highest PPP awarded since Complainant's termination
(expressed as a
percentage of salary) (Stipulation No. 6). Because PPP awards are based in part on salary,
Complainant's calculations
are based on his base salary and level as indicated in CX-132-G and CX-132-L (CX-132-I, 1; Tr.
607). As of
September 1, 1998, Complainant seeks $266,690.74 under the historical model and $267,995.12
under the tracking
method plus interest (CX-132-I, 42; CX-132-N, 42). See notes 30, 33, 35 & 36.
35The parties stipulated to the
method
of calculation for a stock grant (Stipulation No. 11). Complainant asks that these shares be
purchased and and dividends
collected and reinvested as if they had been purchased at the time of award, absent his
termination (Tr. 575). Because
the amount of stock grant is determined in part on salary, Complainant's calculations are based
on his base salary and
level as indicated in CX-132-G and CX-132-L. See notes 30, 33, 34 & 36.
36Under ESOP, GPC purchased
Southern
Company stock, equal to 0.8% of each employee's salary, and placed it in a tax deferred
retirement account. The ESP
program was similar, but allowed Complainant to contribute 6.0% of his salary into his ESP
account (CX-132-K, 1).
GPC matched 4.5% of this amount (Tr. 578). As with the stock grant, Complainant asks that
these accounts be
recreated and stock purchased retroactive to the date of award, absent termination (Tr. 577). To
achieve this,
Complainant agrees that 6% of his back base pay should be withheld to establish his ESP
account (Tr. 580). Because
the amounts placed in the ESOP and ESP accounts are based in part on salary, Complainant's
calculations are based on
his base salary and level as indicated in CX-132-G and CX-132-L. See notes 30, 33, 34,
& 35.
37Respondent provided a list of
minimum
and maximum salaries for levels 20 through 24 (10 through 13) and Complainant's calculated
base salary fell in the
Level 26 (13) range (Tr. 559-60; CX-87).
38A Steven Wilkinson of GPC
also
testified in this matter. Hereinafter, any references to Admiral Wilkinson will be as "ADM
Wilkinson" and
references to Steven Wilkinson as, simply, "Wilkinson".
40He listed Philadelphia
Electric
Company, Public Service Electric and Gas New Jersey, GPC, Commonwealth Edison in
Chicago, Arizona Public
Service, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Texas Electric and Washington Public Service
(CX-44, 10).
41The Management Council
was made
up of CEOs of the subsidiaries of Southern System. At the time CX-99 was generated the
members were:
Mr. Addison - CEO of Southern Company
Joseph Farley - head of Nuclear Operations
Elmer Harris - CEO of Alabama Power
A.W. Dahlberg - CEO of Georgia Power
Doug McCrary - CEO of Gulf Power
Paul DiNicola - CEO of Mississippi Power
Joe Lett - CEO of Savannah Power
Franklin - CEO of SCS
42Franklin had held this
position with
both Alabama Power and SCS. He named the following, who had held the position of
"assistant to" and
now held higher positions within Southern Company:
Dwight Evans - President and CEO of Mississippi Power
Charles Whitney - Vice President of SEI in Europe (a Southern
Company subsidiary with
foreign operations)
43Franklin testified that he
discussed the
difficulty of re-integration with others in management, but could not remember the specifics of
the discussion (Tr. 380).
The council members in effect decided to terminate Complainant's employment during the
November
7 meeting. Baker ultimately conceded that they decided to eliminate the position at that
time. . . .
The November 7 decision was made irrespective of whether Complainant's position had a
function.
. . . Various witnesses who attended the November 7 meeting testified that the focus of the
meeting
was "people," not any particular job. Hobby v. Georgia Power
Company, 90-
ERA-30 at 18, (Sec'y Aug. 4, 1995)
45Most of the 1,171 positions
lost in 1989
were due to the completion of the Plant Vogtle construction (Tr. 1803).
46Winkler testified that
Respondent had
experienced some difficulty in obtaining candid evaluations in the past. During downsizing, new
evaluation criteria
was put in place to provide more reliable evaluations (Tr. 1759-60). He further indicated that he
was unaware when
signing his affidavit that the evaluation upon which he relied had been found to be a
discriminatory act (Tr. 1761).
Hobby v. Georgia Power Company, 90-ERA-30 at 18-21, (Sec'y Aug. 4, 1995)
47Winkler illustrated this point
with the
following examples: Gulf Power does not hire smokers; Mississippi Power will not hire any
relative of any officer or
any current employee's spouse; and Alabama Power uses preemployment tests (Tr. 1749-50).
48Folsom also admitted that
many
employees were omitted due to some "merge process" (Tr. 2556 et. seq.).
Complainant's exhibit
168 contains candidate profiles for employees level 18 (9) and higher who were not included in
Folsom's chart (CX-
168A - Stipulation).
49Smith was a level 17 (9)
employee at
this time and retained the same job title and level when the NOCA employees were absorbed into
the section he lead
(Tr. 2263).
50It is noted here that the
Secretary of
Labor ruled on Williams' offers of other positions.
Williams' testimony that he offered Complainant other positions in lieu of termination does
not
convince me that Respondent had not already decided to remove Complainant from the
"pipeline" for retaliatory reasons. The offers were hollow and
unauthorized. .
. . After all, there was "no place in Georgia Power" for Complainant. In any
event the
alleged offers were not for comparable employment, to which Complainant is now
entitled as a
remedy for Respondent's unlawful retaliation (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Hobby
v. Georgia Power Company, 90-ERA-30 at 26, (Sec'y Aug. 4, 1995)
51The standard severance
package
included four weeks' pay, followed by one week pay for every year service and six months of
insurance benefits (Tr.
2361). Complainant was also offered full employment to August 1990, four years insurance and
25% of salary for four
years plus incentives (Tr. 2364).
52At his deposition, Williams
testified
that he could work with Complainant, but upon further reflection determined that because there
was "a lot gone
under the bridge" he would be uncomfortable with such an arrangement (Tr. 1912-13).
53The group formed was the
Southern
management council, but this process was not implemented prior to Complainant's termination
(Tr. 1951).
54On cross-examination, Dr.
Davenport
admitted that some positions at level 18 (9) or above were not included in her review because
they were excluded from
the search (Tr. 2018 et.seq.).
55Dr. Davenport obtained
Complainant's
qualifications by a review of the job description from his position as general manager of NOCA
and his testimony from
a previous proceeding before the NRC (Tr. 1935). She did not review his performance reviews
or talk to any of
Complainant's former supervisors (Tr. 1948). Dr. Davenport testified that she was unaware of
Complainant's duties
at INPO and NUMARC or his duties or relationship with Miller, the former CEO of GPC (Tr.
1997-8).
56Dr. Davenport further stated
that this
was not always done and was used only for individuals who were identified as having high
leadership potential (Tr.
1982-3).
57The opinion was based on the
fact that
all nuclear activities were switched from GPC to SONOPCO after Complainant's termination
(Tr. 1939).
58Both parties agreed that
Wilkinson
could be used to generate real figures once a decision is rendered by the presiding judges, in the
case that the presiding
judge follows neither party's assumptions for calculations of damages (Tr. 2175).
59These numbers are
supplemented in
RXR-31, which includes calculations for PIP and PPP awards based on first quarter earnings for
1997 (Tr. 2172-3;
RXR-31).
60The minimum in a salary
range is 75%
of the midpoint and the maximum is 120% of the midpoint (Tr. 2156).
62Cimino used three sources in
evaluating
Complainant's CEO potential: 1) a Dun & Bradstreet data disk; 2) biographical information from
Lexis/Nexis; and 3)
information from counsel for Respondent about the CEO of Southern Company (Tr. 884).
63Cimino testified that he
charged about
$65,000.00 for the preparation of this and his second report (Tr. 920).
64"According to
information
provided by [Respondent's counsel], Marvin B. Hobby was released from employment by
Georgia Power Company
on February 23, 1990. Mr. Hobby held several temporary assignment beginning in 1992 and is
currently permanently
employed with United Parcel Service as an "Administrative Assistant'" (RXR-26, 1).
65The Wall Street
Journal,
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Nuclear News, and Chemical
Engineering.
66From February 1990 through
December
1993, Cimino uncovered 1,095 advertisements from 488 discreet companies to which
Complainant could respond.
These advertisements represented 830 positions which were run a total of 1,095 times (RXR-26,
App. A-I, index). Of
these advertisement, Cimino determined that 231 were for positions for which Complainant was
qualified. The
remaining 864 were for companies which would have a need for someone with Complainant's
qualifications, and to
whom Complainant could have sent a resume (RXR-26, 2). The salary mean of positions which
listed salary
information was $65,000.00 per year (RXR-26, 3). However, of the advertisements only 104
listed salary information
(RXR-26, att.9). He testified that between six and seven such advertisements appeared each
week and an prudent
individual would spend approximately twenty hours a week in job search activities (Tr. 888).
This activity would
include searching for companies for which one would be qualified to work and contacting them
via acquaintances and
resumes (Tr. 904).
67Cimino defined reasonably
diligent
effort as "approximately 50 percent of the normal activity . . . making telephone calls,
responding to ads, doing
mailings. In essence . . . making a job out of seeking a job" (Tr. 905). The remainder of
time should be spent
"physically visiting individuals perhaps over a lunch . . . in networking face to face"
(Tr. 905). Cimino
indicated that an individual could make seventy to ninety networking contacts per week
including follow-up calls on
resumes sent (RXR-26, 5).
68Cimino agreed that
Complainant had
some promotional potential within the nuclear industry but repeatedly stated that without
"line" experience
he was unlikely to obtain a CEO position (Tr. 1237).
69Cimino was under the
mistaken
impression that Complainant was terminated for reasons other than his protected activity (Tr.
1234).
70On cross-examination,
Cimino
reiterated this belief that a "watchdog" would be considered a valuable asset to a
nuclear operations
company. He testified that an individual who would carefully watch management to assure that
they did not cross one
of the innumerable regulatory lines would be an asset to such a company (Tr. 1444-5).
71
A marketing program was develop [sic] which contained a resume, a presentation outline
which
highlighted this straw man's strengths and key value points. In addition, a marketing script
and other
documentation was completed. . . . This 'straw man' was presented as an individual who
was but is
no longer working in the nuclear utility industry. He is presently employed in another
industry with
a multi-billion dollar company and is desirous of returning to the nuclear field. Neither
personal
names, nor addresses were mentioned. Also, the names of Georgia Power Company and
United
Parcel Service were rigidly avoided (RXR-25, 1).
All companies contacted were nuclear operators or involved in the nuclear industry
(RXR-25, 5). The
"strawman" differed from Complainant in that Cimino told prospective nuclear
industry employers that
Complainant had been downsized and had left the company (Tr. 917).
72Griswold testified that,
although both
are what is referred to as "headhunters", a retainer firm differs from a contingency
firm. The contingency
firm is paid only when the company hires the individual recommended. They generally deal with
positions paying less
than $60,000 per year. Retainer firms are hired to recommend five or six individuals and are
paid regardless of whether
the individual is hired. These firms deal solely with positions paying more than $65,000 (Tr.
1524).
73At his deposition, Griswold
testified
that he made between 15 and 20 primary, and 30 and 40 secondary contacts. However, at the
hearing he testified that
he made between 8 and 12 primary, and 40 and 50 secondary contacts (Tr. 1629; RXR-15,
175-6).
74In an affidavit prepared on
April 4,
1996, Griswold concluded that:
1. There is a negative perception not only in the nuclear industry but throughout
industry
in general that works against an employee who files a discrimination suit against their
employer.
2. I understand from Mr. Hobby, publicity surrounding his filing a
discriminatory case
appeared in industry publications and may have become known to potential employers as
well as
friends and associates of Mr. Hobby's.
3. Allie industries such as architect/engineers, construction companies, and
management
consultants also could have access to information about the filing of Mr. Hobby's law suit.
4. Friend sand associates of Mr. Hobby's within the industry appeared to be
unable or unwilling
to assist him in his search for employment (CX-140).
75Griswold admitted that he
had no
contact with the utility companies to determine if this, in fact, was the problem. Nor was he
aware of any specific
negative publicity related to Complainant's lawsuit (Tr. 1649).
76After discussions with
Complainant
in preparation of his resume and review of Cimino's report, Griswold concluded that
Complainant's previous positions
could not be classified as "coaching" or "spectating" as characterized by
Cimino (Tr. 1504).
77On cross-examination,
Griswold
testified that he understood that Complainant held a position equivalent to an
"officer," a VP, senior VP or
executive VP while employed by GPC (Tr. 2393).
78Dr. Staller's curriculum vitae
appears
at RXR-9.
79Dr. Staller was not provided
with the
Secretary's Decision and Order in this matter.
80Winkler is a Southern
Company
Staffing Manager (RXR-10, 2). Winkler submitted an affidavit in this matter, but, at the hearing,
noted that it contained
several errors (Tr. 1716; RXR-2).
81The Survey of Displaced
Workers is
a result of the monthly Current Population Survey. Those who responded affirmatively to the
Current Population
Survey's question of "have you lost your job?" were sampled in the Survey of
Displaced Workers. They
were then queried as to how long it took to find another job, at what salary, what was the result
one, two, and five years
later (Tr. 723). Displaced workers are "persons 20 years and older who lost or left jobs
because their plant or
company closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift
was abolished"
(CX-135, 3). Dr. Staller testified that this may or may not have been the definition for the survey
years upon which he
relied. He indicated that the definition had changed, but was unable to indicate what changes had
been made (Tr. 765-
7).
82These figures were obtained
from GPC
as COBRA rates. Dr. Staller did not consider Complainant's actual medical insurance costs (Tr.
814-6).
83This assumption is based on
the report
of James Cimino of Executive Search, Ltd. (RXR-10, 7). Dr. Staller did not independently
verify any of the information
which forms the basis of Cimino's conclusions (Tr. 741).
84"Estimates of damages
based
entirely upon statistics and assumptions are too remote and speculative in order to form a reliable
basis for a calculation
of lost future income or loss of earnings capacity. Such evidence must be grounded up on facts
specific to the individual
whose loss is being calculated." Jerome Staller, Ph.D, Bruce J. Klores, Esq, Faulty
Damage Calculations Can
Ruin the Case, Prod. Liab. L. & Strategy, June 1993.
85Dr. Jackson opined that Dr.
Glazer's
methodology was "more than reasonable" for studying whistleblowers (Tr. 2205).
86RXR-35 contains Dr.
Jackson's notes
regarding his review of these materials. Dr. Jackson was paid an ,000 retainer, $200 an hour
for non-court work and
$300 an hour for in-court testimony (Tr. 2647).
87He opined that this
conclusion would
remain the same regardless of the production of a reference letter from a former supervisor at
GPC. Dr. Jackson did
not have the information upon which to base an opinion of Complainant's possibilities for
employment in other
industries in light of his whistleblowing activity (Tr. 2723).
88Dr. Jackson specifically
noted that
when Dr. Staller indicated that 84% of displaced workers were re-employed that he failed to
indicate that re-
employment includes full-time, part-time and self employment or unpaid family workers (Tr.
2191-2). Dr. Jackson
testified that only 60% of displaced workers found full-time employment (Tr. 2193).
89Reliability means that
"if two
different people gathered the same information in the same way and looked at it, they would
categorize it the same way
for the purposes of the analysis" (Tr. 2703). Problems in the reliability of research
methods raise concerns about
the validity of research conclusions (Tr. 2201-2).
90Dr. Jackson opined that the
seven
"yes" answers only requested that a resume be faxed and this response does not
necessarily indicate a
present job opening (Tr. 2200). In addition, several of the "not now" answers did not
indicate that a position
would be open in the future (Tr. 2201).
91Dr. Glazer's curriculum vitae
appears
as exhibit 1 to her deposition (CX-47, 11, exh. 1).
92This study was based on 64
interview
with whistleblowers and additional interviews with the spouses of whistleblowers, reporters,
congressional aides, state
legislators, and public interest lawyers. In addition Dr. Glazer reviewed documents on between
one and two hundred
whistleblowers. Dr. Glazer testified that there were approximately eight individuals included in
her study who were
employed in the commercial nuclear power industry (CX-47, 31). She used the following criteria
to determine which
individuals should be included in her study:
Justifiable acts of whistleblowing include that the act of whistleblowing stem from
appropriate moral
motives of preventing unnecessary harm to others; that the whistleblower use all available
internal
procedures for rectifying the problematic behavior before public disclosure, although
special
circumstances may preclude this; that the whistleblower has evidence that would persuade
a
reasonable person; that the whistleblower perceives serious danger that can result from the
violation;
that the whistleblower act in accordance with his or her responsibilities for avoiding and/or
exposing
moral violations; the whistleblower's action has some reasonable chance of success
(CX-47, 80-
1).
The purpose of this study was:
To do a historical account of the rise of whistlewblowing in contemporary society, and the
significance of that movement; the second was to analyze the process that whistleblowers
undergo
from the point at which they first identify a significant issue of immoral, unethical or
illegal behavior;
their decision to come forward and speak up about it and their and what happens to them
in that
process (CX-47, 11).
Dr. Glazer further described the participants:
Most of the people in the study, two thirds, were in their thirties or forties, age-wise; they
were in sort
of a height in their careers or in the center of their careers. . . . They were people who had
excellent
performance appraisals, were very identified with their work and great believers in the
mission of
their organization (CX-47, 19).
93Dr. Glazer provided
the following examples of the positions taken by whistleblowers following termination:
James Boyd who was a (sic) aide to Senator Thomas Dodd became an
investigative reporter;
Frank Camps who was a senior design engineer at Ford became an expert witness in
automobile
accident cases. Some people who were doctors or lawyers went into private practice or
started their
own business (CX-47, 15).
94Dr. Glazer indicated
that the failure to obtain a position may be due to "black-listing" or reputation
as a
"troublemaker." However, she did not consult any of the employer's to
determine if this
was the reason for rejecting the applicant, but relied upon the interpretation of the
whistleblower
him/herself and others who had contact with him/her (CX-47, 99-102, 115-16).
95Dr. Glazer admitted
that she had no personal knowledge of Complainant's case nor any of the specifics beyond
the
documents provided to her (CX-47, 34).
96Dr. Glazer charged
$250 an hour for preparation and $350 an hour for testimony in this proceeding (CX-47,
43-4).
97Dr. Soeken's
curriculum vitae appears as exhibit 5 of his deposition (RXR-16, exh. 5). Dr. Soeken was
compensated at a rate of $250 per hour before the deposition and $350 per hour for
depositions
(RXR-16, 38). He owns a farm known as the "Whistle Stop" which he uses as
a retreat
center for whistleblowers and their families (RXR-16, 34).
98Karen L. Soeken,
Ph.D. & Donald R. Soeken, Ph.D., A Survey of Whistleblowers: Their Stressors and
Coping
Strategies (March 1987). Drs. Soeken sent out 233 questionnaires to whistleblowers
identified by
the Government Accountability Project and received 87 responses to questions regarding
whistleblowing activities and effects on physical, emotional, social and spiritual health
(RXR-16,
172-3).
99Dr. Soeken indicated
that Complainant had to ask ADM Wilkinson as well as his parents for money. He also
had to inform
the family who had provided his college scholarship that he had been fired from this job
with
Respondent (RXR-16, exh. 2, 3).
100Dr. Soeken
testified that he would have advised Complainant to:
Go to Admiral Wilkinson, do some of the things. Stick with him. He knows a lot of
the people
in the industry. Go see Paul Blanch and talk to these people and see if they can figure out
way to
weasel you in somewhere. . . .
It would never be at the level that he was at, never. There is no
way in hell
that he's ever going to get to that level because those people know everybody. That's the
reason
they're in those positions. They know everybody, and they know what they have to do to
keep the
right team in place. They're never gong to hire him.
So no matter who knows him, and if the CEOs of all these other
companies
as soon as they find out who he is, they're not going to hire him because they won't be
able to trust
him (RXR-16, 144).
101Dr. Soeken
specifically noted a front-page story in the Atlanta Journal/Constitution which
named
Complainant as a whistleblower as well as other public documents (RXR-16, exh. 10-14).
102Franklin was
employed by Alabama Power, SCS, and Respondent (Tr. 371-3). Evans was employed by
Mississippi Power, SCS, and Respondent (Tr. 827-8). Winkler was employed by both
Respondent
and SCS (Tr. 1713). Williams was employed by Respondent and Southern Company (Tr.
1859-60).
Eubanks was employed by Respondent and SCS (Tr. 2074-5). Wilkinson was employed
by
Mississippi Power and SCS (Tr. 2124). Smith was employed by Respondent and SCS (Tr.
2490-1).
103I do caution
Southern Company and its subsidiaries against any future discrimination against
Complainant based
on his protected activity. Much testimony was offered indicating that individuals in one
subsidiary
may move to another subsidiary to achieve a promotion. Complainant should be offered
these
opportunities equivalent to others at his level of reinstatement. My ruling here does not
provide the
other Southern System companies with a loophole through which to discriminate against
Complainant in the future.
104This amount
should be increased each year on March 1, the date of yearly salary increases, by 4%, the
average
employee salary increase, to reflect the increasing midpoint (except 1990 when salary
increases
became effective April 1) (Tr. 548).
105Although the
position was advertised, it was offered to a current employee at Oglethorpe.
106Respondent
mischaracterizes ADM Wilkinson's deposition testimony stating, "He admitted that
his
involvement with the nuclear industry was "minimal" and his familiarity with
the industry
consisted primarily of reviewing publications." Respondent's Brief at 35. ADM
Wilkinson
characterized his involvement in the industry in this way only after his retirement
(CX-44,
39).
107I have not
considered Dr. Soeken's opinion in this section as I found it so fraught with bias that it was
implausible. Dr. Soeken's opinion seemed to indicate that no whistleblower could ever
expect to find
another position. A claim which is not supported by the evidence in this matter.
108I note here that
many of the previous cases, in which this issue arose, dealt with employees who were
hired as
contractors, temporary employees, or were employees subject to lay-off. See,
Doyle v.
Hydro Nuclear Services, 89-ERA-22 (ARB Sept. 6, 1996); Creekmore,
93-ERA-24
(Dep. Sec'y Feb. 14, 1996); Beck v. Daniel Constr. Co., 86-ERA-26 (Sec'y Aug.
3, 1993);
Nichols v. Bechtel Constr., Inc., 87-ERA-44 (Sec'y Nov. 18, 1993) aff'd sub nom
Bechtel Construction Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 50 F.2d 926 (11th Cir. 1995);
Blake
v. Hatfield Electric Co., 87-ERA-4 (Sec'y Jan. 22, 1992).
Van der Meer v. Western Kentucky University, 95-ERA-38, (ARB Apr. 20,
1998)
(The ARB awarded Van der Meer, a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of
Physics and
Astronomy, $40,000 because he suffered public humiliation and the respondent made a
statement to
a local newspaper questioning Van der Meer's mental competence.);
Gaballa v. The Atlantic Group, 94-ERA-9 at 5 (Sec'y Jan 18, 1996)
(Gaballa, a
contract engineer, had been blacklisted, and testified that he felt his career had been
destroyed by the
respondent's action. The Secretary reviewed the compensatory damages awards for mental
and
emotional suffering made in a number of cases, which ranged from $10,000 to $50,000,
and awarded
Gaballa $35,000.);
Creekmore v. ABB Power Systems Energy Services, Inc., 93-ERA-24
at 25 (Dep'y
Sec'y, Feb. 14, 1996) (The Deputy Secretary awarded Creekmore, a manager of quality
services,
$40,000 for emotional pain and suffering caused by a discriminatory layoff. Creekmore
showed that
his layoff caused emotional turmoil and disruption of his family because he had to accept
temporary
work away from home and suffered the humiliation of having to explain why he had been
laid off
after 27 years with one company.);
Smith v. Littenberg, 92-ERA-52 at 7 (Sec'y Sept. 6, 1995); (The
Secretary affirmed
the ALJ's recommendation of award of $10,000 for mental and emotional stress caused by
discriminatory discharge where Smith, the chief nuclear medicine technologist supported
his claim
with evidence from a psychiatrist that he was "depressed, obsessing, ruminating and
ha[d] post-traumatic problems.");
Blackburn v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 86-ERA-4 at 5 (Sec'y Aug. 16,
1993) (The
Secretary awarded Blackburn $5,000 for mental pain and suffering caused by
discriminatory
discharge where Blackburn became moody and depressed and became short tempered with
his wife
and children.);
Lederhaus v. Paschen, 91-ERA-13 at 10 (Sec'y Oct. 26, 1992) (The
Secretary awarded
Lederhaus, a radiography technician, $10,000 for mental distress caused by discriminatory
discharge
where Lederhaus showed he was unemployed for five and one half months; foreclosure
proceedings
were initiated on his house; bill collectors harassed him and called his wife at her job, and
her
employer threatened to lay her off; and his family life was disrupted. Lederhaus was
unemployed
for five and one half months.);
DeFord v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 81-ERA-1 at 3 (Sec'y Apr. 30,
1984) (The
Secretary reduced the ALJ's award of $50,000 to DeFord to $10,000 indicating that
DeFord had not
shown any damage to his reputation or removal from professional societies.);
Doyle v. Hydro Nuclear Services, 89-ERA-22 (ALJ Nov. 7, 1995),
aff'd
(ARB Sept. 6, 1996) (Respondent failed to hire Complainant because he would not sign a
release for
a background check resulting in Complainant's inability to obtain employement. The ALJ
awarded
$40,000 in compensatory damages.)
110 In
Stallworth, the court upheld damages for humilation and emotional distress, even
though
the employee had not been discharged, had not sought any "professional help"
and had
not "slipped" in his relationship with "coworkers."
Stallworth, 777
F.2d at 1435.
111The Deputy
Secretary considered Complainant's "panic" in dispersing these funds as
evidence of the
emotional turmoil that resulted from his discriminatory layoff. Creekmore,
93-ERA-24 at
14.(Dep. Sec'y Feb. 14, 1996).
112For 1990, the
midpoint was $102,408.00; for 1991 - $106,500.00; for 1992 - $110,232.00; for 1993 -
$114,096.00;
for 1994 - $116,376.00; for March 1 - June 1, 1995 - $118,704.00; for 1995 - $116,112.00;
for 1996
- $118,440.00; and for 1997 - $120,804.00. Appendix D. Steven Wilkinson will be
responsible for
calculation and submission of the dollar figure for 1998 and this amount should be added
to those
above.
113This amount will
have increased by $120.00 per month since April 15, 1998.
114Within ten days
of receipt of these stock amounts and the payment of all back pay award, Complainant will
reimburse
Respondent for any employee contributions necessary to the creation of these accounts.