Hasan v. Sargent & Lundy, 2002-ERA-32 (ALJ Jan. 8, 2003)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 36 E. 7th Street, Suite 2525 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 684-3252 (513) 684-6108 (FAX)

Issue Date: 08 January 2003
Case No.: 2002-ERA-0032

In the Matter of:

SYED HASAN
    Complainant

    v.

SARGENT & LUNDY
    Respondent

   This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, ("ERA"), 42 U.S.C. §5851, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Part 24., which prohibit an employer from discriminating against or otherwise taking unfavorable personnel action against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee engaged in protected activity. On June 7, 2002, the complainant, Syed M. A. Hasan, filed his ERA complaint against Sargent & Lundy, Respondent, with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"), alleging that the respondent refused to hire him because he had previously raised safety concerns. Following a rejection of his complaint by OSHA, Complainant filed his complaint with the Office of Administrative Law Judges on July 23, 2002. This is the third ERA complaint filed by Complainant against the respondent. The case has not yet been scheduled for hearing.

   On August 26, 2002, Respondent submitted to this Court a motion to dismiss the instant claim or, in the alternative, to place the case in abeyance until the resolution of another claim between the parties before another administrative law judge. On September 5, 2002, Complainant submitted his response. In my September 11, 2002 Order, I placed the case in abeyance until the resolution of Complainant's other pending case against Respondent in order to facilitate an easier timetable for the parties and to potentially avoid duplicative litigation. On December 5, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick issued a Recommended Decision and Order in the other case between the instant parties, dismissing Complainant's case. Complainant has appealed the dismissal. In the instant case, Respondent has renewed its motion to dismiss the complainant, and Complainant has requested the Court to establish discovery guidelines and schedule a formal hearing.

   I have considered the submissions of both parties. At this time, I find it prudent to continue to hold the case in abeyance until a final decision and order is issued by the Secretary of Labor. The parties shall place the Court on notice once a final decision and order is issued. Then, I shall address the motions of both parties.

   So ordered.

      JOSEPH E. KANE
      Administrative Law Judge