September 24, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
CASE NO. 87-ERA-10
RICHARD COUTY, v.
ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT CO., BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) James W. Kerr submitted a Recommend Decision and Order (R.D. and O.) to me on November 16, 1987, in this case arising under the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1982).
The record in this case, including the briefs of the parties, has been
reviewed, and I agree with the ALJ's conclusion that Respondent did not
violate the Act when it Complainant in October, 1986, and that
there is no evidence which supports Complainant's allegation that he has
been blacklisted by Respondent. The ALJ made his findings and reached his
conclusions based on his evaluation of the evidence presented and his
judgment of the credibility of the witnesses who testified before him.
The record supports these conclusions1 of
the ALJ on the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. I adopt the ALJ's
recommended decision and order that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima
facie case and that the complaint in this case should be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Complaint in this case IS DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
ANN
MCLAUGHLIN
Washington, D. C.
1 Although finding that Complainant
had failed to make a prima facie case
on the retaliatory discharge issue, the ALJ also discussed whether the
evidence would have the same result (dismissal) if a prima facie
case had been established. R.D. and O. at 11-13. While I agree that the
record fully supports the ALJ's factual analysis here, his legal analysis of
the shifts in burden of proof is not entirely consistent with the decision
in Dartey v. Zack, 82-ERA-2, Secretary's decision issued April 25, 1983,
slip op. at 6-9. This discussion, by the ALJ, however, is dicta and is not
necessary to the decision in this case.
|
||||||||
|