September 25, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Case No. 80-SDWA-1 In the Matter of
DONALD LEE RAY
vs.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
This is a proceeding under the Safe Drinking Water Act (38 Stat. 1660, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 300f, et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 1450(i) of the Act (38 Stat. 1692; 42 U.S.C. 300 j-9(i)) prohibits discrimination against an employee because of actions to carry out the purposes of the Act. It provides that an employee who believes he has been discriminated against in violation of that section may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within 30 days after the violation occurs. An earlier proceeding (Case No. 79-SDWA-2) related to a number of alleged acts of discrimination against the complainant by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee and several officials. Such acts included his transfer on February 23, 1979 from his job as head of a chemistry laboratory to another job in Project Prevent/Recover, a project concerned with management of hazardous material. After a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Judge issued a recommended decision, dated June 5, 1979, in which he found that Ray's job transfer was not a violation of the Act and that he did not file a timely complaint with respect to other alleged acts of discrimination. In a decision dated July 13, 1979, I concluded that the Judge's decision was correct and I adopted [Page 2] it as my own and dismissed the complaints involved in that proceeding. On September 25, 1979, Ray filed the complaint under consideration in this proceding. On October 23, 1979, he filed a supplemental complaint. He alleged that the respondents had engaged in various discriminatory actions against him, which included bringing disciplinary charges against him on October 4, 1979 and discharging him from his employment on October 9, 1979. A hearing on Ray's complaints was held before an Administrative Law Judge. On March 18, 1980, the Judge issued a recommended decision in which he found that the respondents did not discriminate against Ray because of activity protected by the Act, and Section 1450(i) of the Act had not been violated; that Ray was discharged from his employment because of factors unrelated to such protected activity, including poor performance, personnel conflicts, and inability to adjust to usual and normal employment situations. Accordingly, the Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed. A study of the record convinces me that the recommended decision of the Judge is correct, and I adopt such decision as my own. I find that the respondents did not discriminate against Donald Lee Ray because of activity to carry out the purposes of the Act and that they did not violate Section 1450(i) thereof. Accordingly the complaint and supplemental complaint filed by Ray in September and October, 1979, respectively, are dismissed.
Dated at Washington, D.C.
RAY MARSHALL
|
||||||||
|