DATE:  February 4, 1994
CASE NO. 91-ERA-55


IN THE MATTER OF

CHARLES J. MERRIWEATHER,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                         FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
(R.D. and O.) of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this case
arising under the employee protection provisions of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §
5851 (1988).  The ALJ recommended that Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted and the complaint dismissed. 
Respondent (TVA) filed a brief before me in support of the ALJ's
R.D. and O.
     TVA discharged Complainant from his position as a security
officer at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant on August 2, 1991, for the
stated reason that he sexually harassed a female TVA employee. 
Complainant filed a complaint dated July 15, 1991, stating that
he was on 30 day notice of proposed termination because of
fabricated charges of sexual harassment, and that safety
complaints to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were the
motivation for these fabricated charges by his managers.  Before
the ALJ Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April
14, 1992, requesting dismissal of the complaint on grounds of
Complainant's failure to present sufficient evidence to raise any
genuine issue of material fact.  

[PAGE 2]
     Upon careful review of the R.D. and O., Respondent's motion
and all of the submissions in the administrative record, I adopt
and append hereto the ALJ's R.D. and O. of May 21, 1993, granting
summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.  
     The regulations at 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.40, 18.41
(1991), provide that a summary judgment is appropriate if the
pleadings, affidavits, material obtained by discovery or
otherwise, or matters officially noticed show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact.  As Respondent's motion
with supporting affidavits, was filed in accordance with the
provisions found at 29 C.F.R. §18.40, Complainant "must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of
fact for the hearing."  29 C.F.R. § 18.40(c).  
     The record here establishes that Complainant has failed to
show that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to
a requisite element of his prima facie case of retaliatory
discharge.  Although Complainant alleges that his discharge was
in retaliation for protected safety complaints made to the NRC,
he admittedly cannot produce any evidence to support a finding
that the TVA managers responsible for the discharge decision had
any knowledge of his alleged protected activity.  Consequently, I
find that the decision to grant summary judgment is consistent
with the pertinent caselaw and the prior decisions of the
Secretary on granting summary decisions.  See Street v.
J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1476-1481 (6th Cir.
1989); Smith v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No. 90-
ERA-12, Sec. Final Dec. and Order of Dismissal, April 30, 1992,
slip op. at 2-5; Howard v. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Case No. 90-ERA-24, Sec. Final Dec. and Order of Dismissal, July
3, 1991, slip op. at 3-6, aff'd sub nom. Howard
v. U.S. Department of Labor, 959 F.2d 234 (1992).   
     Accordingly, I adopt the ALJ's R.D. and O. granting summary
judgment and dismissing the complaint. 
     SO ORDERED.




                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.