Erickson v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003-CAA-11 (ALJ Apr. 14, 2003)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges Heritage Plaza Bldg. - Suite 530 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 589-6201 (504) 589-6268 (FAX)

Issue Date: 14 April 2003

CASE NO.: 2003 -CAA- 11

IN THE MATTER OF

SHARYN ERICKSON,
    Complainant

    v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IV, ATLANTA, GEORGIA & EPA INSPECTOR GENERAL,
    Respondents

   On April 2, 2003, Complainant filed a Motion to Strike Respondents' Insufficient Defenses and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment alleging that Respondents failed to raise any issue of material fact and failed to file with the Court anything under oath from anyone about any issue before the Court. On April 7, 2003, Respondent EPA filed a Response alleging that Complainant's motion was wholly without merit and premature.

   In Respondent EPA's Answer, it denied all material allegations in Complainant's Complaint. The regulations set forth the requirements for a valid answer:

(c) Signature required. Every answer filed pursuant to these rules shall be signed by the party filing it or by at least one attorney, in his or her individual name, representing such party. The signature constitutes a certificate by the signer that he or she has read the answer; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
(d) Content of answer – . . . (2) Complaints. Any respondent contesting any material fact alleged in a complaint, . . . shall file an answer in writing. An answer shall include:
   (i) A statement that the respondent admits, denies, or does not have and is unable to obtain sufficient information to admit or deny each allegation; a statement of lack of information shall have the effect of a denial; any allegation not expressly denied shall be deemed to be admitted;
   (ii) A statement of the facts supporting each affirmative defense.

Under 29 C.F.R. § 18.5 (2001).¹

¹ Respondent EPA mistakenly asserted that the requirements for a valid answer were provided in 29 C.F.R. § 22.9. That Part concerns the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986. The instant whistleblowing case falls under 29 C.F.R. § 24.1 et. seq., which concerns Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Federal Employee Protection Statutes. Because that Part does not contain a subsection dealing with the filing of an answer, reference is then made to 29 C.F.R. § 18.1 et. seq., which concern the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges.