and while I am well aware that Complainant may make a prima facie case by circumstantial evidence which establishes facts adequate to permit an inference of discrimination, no such reasonable inference has here been demonstrated by Complainant.
Granted, though barred by time constraints, previous acts can be considered to explain current conduct; however, here the only past actions on Complainant's part were his comment to a "lady" at Alabama Power Company in July 1997 urging her to not discriminate against him and a resume he thinks he sent to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.'s Plant Vogtle in 1998 or 1999 at which time he spoke to a "male" and revealed himself as a whistleblower. The remoteness of these events in time and specificity are such that an inference that these persons "immediately" conveyed to Southern Company and other subsidiaries the identity of Mr. Hasan is neither plausible nor supportable by other evidence. It is nothing more than speculation on Complainant's part.
In sum, Complainant has failed to demonstrate that any of Respondents' employees who took part in the process of reviewing Complainant's resume and the hiring of another in February 2003 had any knowledge of Complainant's acclaimed status as a "whistleblower." To the contrary, Complainant agreed in his deposition that he had no way of knowing if anyone had ever alerted these two men of his previous conduct, that he had not told the representative at CDI Professional Services (through whom he sought the job) of his status, nor was it so noted on his resume. In other words, Complainant can offer no evidence to demonstrate or infer that Messrs. Blanco and Smith are being untruthful when they swear they had no knowledge of Complainant's whistleblowing activities at the time they made their hiring decision in February 2003 and that they hired Kevin Mendenhall for the assignment because he was determined by them to be the most qualified, was known, liked and respected by his peers.
[Page 4]
As to Complainant's motion to disqualify Respondents' counsel and for default judgment and sanctions, I find the same to have no merit. Respondents' counsel objected to what they viewed as overly broad discovery and answered those interrogatories as required to do so. As far as the affidavits of Messrs. Blanco and Smith there is no evidence to suggest these men perjured themselves or that the Respondents' counsel sought perjured testimony from them. I find nothing in Complainant naked allegations that would require the disqualification of these counsel nor the entry of a judgment with sanctions against Respondents.
ORDER
For reasons stated, Respondents' motions are GRANTED and Complainant's complaint is DISMISSED . Likewise, for reasons stated, Complainant's motions are DENIED .
So ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2004, at Metairie, Louisiana.
C. RICHARD AVERY
Administrative Law Judge
CRA:kw
[ENDNOTES]
1 Complainant filed his complaint against Southern Company and all of its subsidiaries.
2 In making such an argument, Complainant urges acts outside of the prescriptive period which are action barred should be considered as relevant background evidence to explain current conduct.
3 Southern Company Services, Inc., provides engineering and construction consulting services to affiliate companies in Southern Company.
4 During his deposition, Complainant acknowledged some 26 unsuccessful ERA complaints he has filed against various employers.