Office of Administrative Law Judges 2 Executive Campus, Suite 450 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
(856) 486-3800
Issue Date: 09 September 2003
CASE NO: 2003-CAA-00014
In the Matter of
DANIEL S. SOMERSON
Complainant
v.
MAIL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA
Respondent
Appearances:
Edward A. Slavin, Jr., Esquire
For Complainant
Oscar E. Davis, Esquire
For Respondent
Before: RALPH A. ROMANO
Administrative Law Judge
RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Complainant brings this proceeding under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7622), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9610), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-9), the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6971), and the Toxic Substances Disposal Act (15 U.S.C. 2622)- hereinafter "the Acts".1
1 Respondent's notion that this claim is barred under the statue of limitations (Br. @6) ignores Complainant's assertion that the alleged failure to re-hire is a continuing violation.
2 References are "Tr".-transcript of trial; "CX"- Complainant's exhibits; "RX"-Respondent's exhibits.
3 See Order July 17, 2003. Complainant's motion for miscellaneous relief, including a stay of filing deadlines, dated August 12, 2003, is denied.
4 Complainant also asserts that he has been "blacklisted" since his protected activity (Tr. @16). I find no evidence in this record, however, suggestive of behavior traditionally characterized as blacklisting, and proceed herein only upon the claim that the adverse employment action taken took the form of failure to rehire. (See also Tr. @27).
5 Complainant was also found to have intimidated and harassed witnesses and counsel (id @4).
6 In Judge Miller's case, a substantial part of which record has been admitted here, of course, there was no evidence of environmental complaints, only complaints of transportation safety (website). The environmental complaints were created by writings dated December 17, and 25, 2002 after Judge Miller's December 16, 2002 decision.
7 Complainant's testimony that he unsuccessfully applied for re-hire both "[b]efore] and after" his December, 2002 environmental complaints, (Tr. 117) suggests that the making of those complaints had no impact upon Respondent's behavior toward Complainant, rendering his environmental complaints even less likely to have motivated a failure to re-hire.