DATE: July 24, 1992
CASE NO. 92-ERA-16

IN THE MATTER OF

YVONNE WILKINSON
    Complainant

    v.

TEXAS UTILITIES
    Respondent

    Came on this date to be considered Complainant's Motion For Change of Venue filed July 20, 1982 and the Response In Opposition filed by Respondent July 24, 1992.

    According to 29 C.F.R. § 24.5 (c), hearings shall be held within 75 miles of the Complainant's residence, if possible. However, in scheduling the date, time and place of the hearing, due regard shall be given to the convenience of the witnesses, parties and their representatives. 5 U.S.C. § 554 (b); 29 C.F.R. § 18.27 (c). The administrative law judge to whom the case is assigned "may change the time, date and place of the hearing . . . on his . . . own

motion or for good cause shown by a party." 29 C.F.R. § 18.27(b).

    The response in opposition filed by Respondent indicates that Complainant, all witnesses, as well as counsel for Respondent, reside in Dallas, Texas, where the trial is scheduled, or in the surrounding area. Respondent is also of the opinion that this belated request for a change in location is a dilatory tactic designed to increase the cost of defending this litigation.

    Complainant has failed to demonstrate good cause to support a change in the place scheduled for the August 4, 1992 hearing. Complainant's lay representative, Mr. Dow, has repeatedly asserted that he is fearful that his life will be jeopardized by returning to the State of Texas. However, Mr. Dow has not presented any objective proof to support his assertions. Most recently, Mr. Dow alleged that his fear has been the subject of more than one newspaper account." However, he has not submitted such articles for consideration by this Court. Mr. Dow's mere subjective allegations are not sufficient to modify the location of the scheduled hearing.

    This is not the first occasion where this Court has refused to recognize Mr. Dow's allegations regarding this issue. See, e.g., letter to Mr. Dow from Judge Jennings, dated February 10, 1992 (denial of Complainant's request for a hearing via telephone conference.)

    A change in the place of hearing will pose a hardship on both Respondent and its counsel. The location of Respondent's principal place of business, Complainant's residence, the location where the cause of action arose, Respondent's counsel's residence and where all witnesses reside are all within the Dallas/Ft. Worth area of the State of Texas. Respondent's counsel does not have an office in Washington, D.C., as erroneously alleged by Complainant's representative. A transfer of this case to Washington, D. C., from Dallas, Texas, a distance of approximately 1,329 miles for the primary benefit of Complainant's lay representative is not warranted.

    Even though the evidence of record is insufficient for the Court to determine the legitimacy of the expressed fears, the Court will not require the personal appearance of Complainant's lay representative. There are many competent and qualified attorneys in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area who specialize in this type of

litigation. Complainant is again encouraged to seek the assistance of legal representation. However, Complainant is advised that she must appear in person and be prepared for trial, with or without a representative, in accordance with the Order of Reassignment and Rescheduling entered June 11, 1992. If Complainant fails to appear in person in accordance with that Order she will be subject to the appropriate sanctions authorized by law including, but not limited to, the dismissal of this case with prejudice.

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Complainant's Motion for a Change of Venue, is, in all things, DENIED.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Complainant shall, due to the prior difficulties of the Court in contacting the lay representative, notify Mr. Dow of the contents of this order within 48 hours after its receipt.

    Entered this 24th day of July, 1992, at Metairie, Louisiana.

       JAMES W. KERR, JR.
       Administrative Law Judge