skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Images of lawyers, judges, courthouse, gavel
September 17, 2008         DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
USDOL/OALJ Reporter

Pickett v. Tennessee Valley Authority, ARB No. 00-076, ALJ Nos. 1999-CAA-25 and 2000-CAA-9 (ARB Nov. 16, 2000)


U.S. Department of LaborAdministrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
DOL
Seal

ARB CASE NO. 00-076
ALJ CASE NOS. 99-CAA-25
   00-CAA-9
DATE: November 16, 2000

In the Matter of:

DAVID W. PICKETT,
    COMPLAINANT,

    v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA),
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG),
GEORGE PROSSER & DONALD DRUMM,
    RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
    Edward A. Slavin, Jr., Esq.,
        St. Augustine, Florida

For the Respondent:
   Edward S. Christenbury, Esq., Thomas F. Fine, Esq., Brent R. Marquand, Esq., Dillis D. Freeman, Jr., Esq.,
      Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee

ORDER DENYING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
AND VACATE (OR CLARIFY) ORDER AND MOTION TO
HOLD HEARING ON MOTION

   On November 2, 2000, the Administrative Review Board issued an Order striking the Complainant's opening brief and permitting the Complainant to refile a brief consistent with the Board's order postmarked no later than November 16, 2000. Complainant subsequently filed a Motion to Reconsider and Vacate (or Clarify) Order and Motion to Hold Hearing on Motion.


[Page 2]

   The Motion is DENIED. Counsel for Complainant argues that our order violates Complainant's right to free expression. Counsel misapprehends our order, in which we stated,

While counsel for Pickett has the right to criticize rulings of the ALJ with which his client disagrees, he has no right to engage in disrespectful and offensive personal attacks upon the ability and integrity of the ALJ; such attacks violate counsel's "professional obligation to demonstrate respect for the courts." Id. at 6. Accord ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble, Rules 3.5 and 8.2 (1999).

Although Complainant has not requested additional time in which to resubmit his brief as provided in our November 2nd Order, we extend the date on which the brief must be postmarked until November 17, 2000.1

   SO ORDERED.

      PAUL GREENBERG
      Chair

      E. COOPER BROWN
      Member

      CYNTHIA L. ATTWOOD
      Member

[ENDNOTES]

1 This order will be served on Complainant's counsel by facsimile to the facsimile number listed on documents filed with the Board in this case.



Phone Numbers