|
|
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||
 |
| September 25, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
|
USDOL/OALJ Reporter Office of Administrative Law Judges 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 DATE: May 11, 1992 CASE NO: 92-WPC-00004 In the Matter of
WILBUR DAVID DRIVER, v.
WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY,
This matter came for hearing by this Court pursuant to the provisions of 29 C.F.R Part 24. Complainant filed his complaint of discrimination as provided in 29 C.F.R. Part 24 for violations by Westinghouse Savannah River Company of the employee protection provisions of the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1367; the Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9610; the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2622; the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-9; the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6971; the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 5851; and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7622. Complainant filed his complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor on January 31, 1992. After making a fact-finding investigation, the Department concluded that the complainant's allegations could not be substantiated. The complainant was notified of the Department's findings on March 31, 1992 and filed a timely appeal and request for a formal hearing. By Notice of Hearing sent to Complainant and Respondent on April 23, 1992, this Court scheduled the hearing for May 19, 1992 in Augusta, Georgia. A Pre-Hearing Statement Order was also sent to the parties on April 23, 1992. Now comes Complainant and submits his dismissal of this case to this Court which reads as follows:
It is well settled that dismissals of ERA complaints are covered by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P). Rainey v. Wayne State Univ, Case No. 90 ERA-43. See Order to Show Cause, January 7, 1991 slip. op. at 3 (citing Nolder v Kaiser Engineers, Inc, Case No. 84 ERA-5, See Final Decision and Order, June 28, 1985, slip op. at 6-7. See Order of Dismissal, February 27, 1991. The Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the U.S. shall be applied in any situation not provided for or controlled by any statute, executive order or regulation. 29 C.F.R. § 18.1(a). The Respondent has not filed an Answer or a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case nor did the parties respond to the Court's Pre-Hearing Statement Order. Accordingly, the Court finds that the complainant's dismissal is timely and in accord with the provisions for such voluntary dismissal as authorized in Rule 41 (a)(1)(i).
IT IS ORDERED that 1. The complaint of William David Driver be DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) without prejudice. 2. The complainant's request for hearing is DISMISSED. 3. The hearing scheduled for May 19, 1992 is CANCELLED.
CLEMENT J. KICHUK |
||||||||
| ||||||||
