Erickson v. Inspector General, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2001-CAA-8 (ALJ Apr. 13, 2001)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-8002

Date: April 13, 2001
Case No.: 2001-CAA-8

In the Matter of

SHARYN ERICKSON,
    Complainant,

v.

INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
    Respondent.

   Complainant, Sharyn Erickson, requests by letter submitted April 6, 2001, that this claim filed pursuant to Section 312 of the Clean Air Act, Section 110 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Section 507 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 1450 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and Section 7001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, be remanded to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for further investigation. In support, complainant states that OSHA failed to fully investigate the merits of her claim and automatically ruled against her because she is a federal employee.

   In Billings v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 91-ERA-12 (ARB June 26, 1996), complainant sought remand of the matter to the reviewing administration for further investigation. The Board affirmed the ALJ's ruling denying remand because complainant did not establish a legitimate reason for remand, but only attacked the merits of the finding of nondiscrimination. The Board added that the initial findings were not binding on the ALJ because the regulations accord complainants a right to de novo hearings on the merits of complaints. Thus, the Board ruled that "any arguable flaws in the ... investigation or findings would not adversely affect litigation of his case before the ALJ." Slip op. at 8-9. See also, Egenrieder v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 85-ERA-23 (Sec'y Apr. 20, 1987) (noting that neither the ERA nor the regulations specifically contemplate a remand for further investigation).

   Similar to the complainant in Billings, in this case complainant has failed to establish a basis for remand. Further, complainant is provided under 29 C.F.R. § 24.6 with the opportunity to present the evidence necessary to establish her claim and, if necessary, to pursue formal discovery to further develop the evidence to support the merits of her claim before presiding Administrative Law Judge. See Khandelwal v. Southern California Edison, (ARB Nov. 30, 2000).

   Accordingly, the request to remand the claim filed by Sharyn Erickson for further investigation by OSHA is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

       THOMAS M. BURKE
       Associate Chief Judge

Washington, DC
TMB/cmt