, 95-WPC-1 (ALJ Mar. 7,
1997)
DATE ISSUED: MARCH 7, 1997
CASE NO: 95-WPC-1
In the Matter of
RAY MASEK
Complainant
v
THE CADLE COMPANY
Respondent
APPEARANCES:
James Franks, Esq.
Raymond J. Masek, Esq.
For the Complainant
John M. Manos, Esq.
For the Respondent
BEFORE: MICHAEL P. LESNIAK
Administrative Law Judge
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER ON DAMAGES
This is a proceeding brought under the Water Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C. 1367; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7622; the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C.
2622, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Part 24. The Secretary of Labor
has been given responsibility pursuant to said statutes to investigate complaints by employees, or
persons acting on their behalf, of discrimination action by employers.
I issued a Recommended Decision and Order on Liability only on March
NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order and the administrative file in this matter will
be forarwarded for final decision to the Administrative Review Board, United States Department
of Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins Bldg., 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20210. See 61 Fed. Reg. 19978 and 19982 (1996).
MPL/cs/bg
[ENDNOTES]
1 This exhibit was admitted
during the hearing which commenced on June 20, 1995.
2 TR 2 refers to the transcript fo
the October 29, 1996 hearing.
3 I note that during Masek's
deposition, he testified after being fired by The Cadle Company, he saw his first client around
April, 1995 and other than unemployment compensation, he had no other source of income
between August, 1994 and April, 1995. (See Masek deposition taken September 26, 1996),
pages 9-11).
4 See Masek's response to my
special interrogatories filed November 12, 1996.
5 Masek's income tax return
shows an adjusted gross income of $2,137. If I were to add back his capital loss of $3,000 and
divide by 12, this would result in a monthly gross of $428. Multiplying $428 x 4 months (until
May 1, 1995) would result in mitigation in the amount of ,712, less than his response to my
interrogatory.
6 See also Rodenhausen
deposition dated Nov 9, 1995 page 11, line 23-page 12, line 9.
7 Respondent objected to
awarding Claimant money for postage and phone charges as awarding these damages would
result in compensating Claimant twice. Respondent felt that Claimant was reducing his income
by deducting these amounts as expenses and double dipping would occur if Claimant was
awarded these amounts. However, Claimant tesstified that he did not deduct these amounts as
exponses. (TR 41).