September 25, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Case No. 80-SDWA-2
GLENN M. GREENWALD vs.
THE CITY OF NORTH
This is a proceeding under the Safe Drinking Water Act (88 Stat. 1660, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 300 f, et seq.). In December 1977, Glenn M. Greenwald filed a complaint alleging that the City of North Miami Beach discharged him from his employment, in violation of Section 1450(i) of the Act. (88 Stat. 1692; 42 U.S.C. 300 j-9(i). That section prohibits discrimination against an employee because of activities to carry out the purposes of the Act. After a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Judge issued a recommended decision in which he recommended that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that it was not timely filed. I concluded that the Judge was correct, and in a decision issued April 3, 1978 I adopted his recommendation and dismissed the complaint. (Case No. 78-SDWA-1) That decision was sustained by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 587 F. 2d 779 (1979), cert. den. 100 S. Ct. 49 (1979)
Thereafter Greenwald applied to the City of North Miami
Beach for re-employment. The city declined to re-employ
him on the ground that there was no vacancy. Thereupon
Greenwald filed a complaint initiating the present proceeding,
alleging that the city continued to discriminate
against him in violation of Section 1450(i) by failing to
rehire him. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge
issued a recommended decision in which he recommended that
the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.1 He stated:
In my opinion, the decision of the Judge, dated March
11, 1980 is correct, and I adopt it as my own. Accordingly,
the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Dated at Washington, D.C.
RAY MARSHALL
1 During the hearing the City of North
Miami Beach made
a motion to dismiss the complaint due to lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person. Greenwald
was served with a copy of the motion and through his attorney
he filed a statement in opposition. He also filed a motion
for leave to file an affidavit to supplement the hearing
record. His motion was received after the issuance of the
Judge's recommended decision. Considering all the
circumstances, including the result reached herein, such motion
is denied.
|
||||||||
|