ARB CASE NO. 03-029
ALJ CASE NO. 02-CAA-21
DATE: May 28, 2004
In the Matter of:
RAMACHANDRAN SEETHARAMAN,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,
EXELON CORPORATION,
MITSUBISHI POWER SYSTEMS,
MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY,
NEBRASKA BOILER COMPANY, and
ENGLISH BOILER AND TUBE, INC.,
RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the Complainant: Ramachandran Seetharaman, pro se, Ashland, Massachusetts.
For the Respondents, General Electric Company and Mitsubishi Power Systems:
Neil Stekloff, Esq., and Bonnie Pierson-Murphy, Esq., Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, Stamford, Connecticut
For the Respondent, Pacific Gas & Electric Company:
William B. Koffel, Esq., Foley Hoag, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts
For the Respondent, Exelon Corporation:
Donn C. Meindertsma, Esq., Winston & Strawn, Washington, D.C.
For the Respondent, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority:
John S. Chinian, Esq., Boston, Massachusetts
For the Respondent, Nebraska Boiler Company:
Heather M. Tiltmann, Esq., Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
Ramachandran Seetharaman filed a complaint under the whistleblower protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 7622 (West 2003); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 9610 (West 1995); the Resource
1 These statutes generally prohibit employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee "with respect to the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" because the employee engaged in protected activities such as initiating, reporting, or testifying in any proceeding regarding environmental and nuclear safety or health concerns. See 29 C.F.R. § 24.2.
2 Seetharaman has a claim against Stone, ALJ No. 03-CAA-004, which is pending before the ALJ and is not part of this case. Seetharaman also settled a previous claim against MWRA. Seetharaman v. Massachusetts Water Res. Auth., ALJ No. 00-CAA-18 (ALJ Oct. 23, 2001). MWRA Motion for Summary Decision, Exhibit 6.
3 The ARB has held that the use of "person" in the FWPCA, RCRA, and CERCLA in place of "employer," which is used in the other environmental statutes, nevertheless requires that the responding "person" have an employment relationship with the complainant or act in the capacity of an employer, that is, exercise control over the terms, conditions, or privileges of the complainant's employment. Lewis v. Synagro Technologies, Inc., ARB No. 02-072, ALJ Nos. 02-CAA-12, 14, slip op. at 10-14 (ARB Feb. 27, 2004).
4 The remaining Respondents based their motions for summary decision in part on Seetharaman's failure to state a claim against them. See General Electric Company's Motion to Dismiss, MWRA's Motion for Summary Decision, and Exelon's Motion to Dismiss.
5 The only alleged adverse actions that occurred within the time frames for filing a complaint are Seetharaman's transfer to another department in February 2000 and his discharge from Stone on May 2, 2000; the others are untimely. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C.A. § 5851(b)(1) (ERA) (180 days); 42 U.S.C.A. § 7622(b)(1) (CAA) (30 days). See also 29 C.F.R. § 24.3(b)(1-2).