DATE: November 19, 1992
CASE NO: 92-ERA-00059

In the Matter of

EDWARD S. WOLLESEN,
   Complainant,

    v.

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION,
    Respondent,

   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 violation by Florida Power Corporation of the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 5851.

   Complainant filed his complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor on August 24, 1992. After making a fact-finding investigation, the Department of Labor concluded that the complainant's allegations of discrimination could not be substantiated. The complainant was notified of the Department's findings and conclusion on September 25, 1992. He then filed a timely appeal and request for a formal hearing.

   By Notice of Hearing sent to Complainant and Respondent on October 14, 1992, this Court scheduled the hearing for December 9, 1992, in Tampa, Florida. A Pre-Hearing Statement Order was also sent to the parties on October 14, 1992.

   Pursuant to the Court's Order the Respondent submitted its Pre-Hearing Statement to the Court on November 16, 1992. on the same date the Court received complainant's letter which reads as follows:

"At this time I am forced to withdraw the case no. above. All attempts to obtain counsel, at a fee I can afford, have failed. Since there exists a law to prevent the

treatment I have received but the law is not effective for persons such as my self, ex-nuclear worker, I will refer this case to my local U.S. Congresswoman, the Honorable Ms. Louise Slaughter to seek assistance from Congress.

If there is anyone who can help please respond; not so much for me, but for my family (young daughter) and ex-wife, who are being hurt the more this blacklisting continues."

   On November 19, 1992 this Court received the Respondent's letter stating that Florida Power has no objection to the complaint being withdrawn by the Complainant.

   At all times in these proceedings the complainant has not been represented by counsel and has acted pro se. Complainant implies that his request for withdrawal of his complaint is mainly due to his inability to retain an attorney.

   It is well settled that voluntary dismissals of ERA complaints are covered by Rule 41 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Kleiman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Case No. 91-ERA-00050, Sec. Final Order of Dismissal, 02-21-92, (citing Rainey v. Wayne State University, Case No. 90-ERA-40.

   Pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(2), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance upon order of the Court and upon such terms and conditions as the Court deems proper.

   The Court finds that the Complainant's basic request for withdrawal has merit as intended by the Complainant in his letter of November 6, 1992 received by the Court on November 16, 1992. The Respondent has declared to the Court that it has no objection to the withdrawal requested by the Complainant. Respondent, through its counsel, has presented no counterclaim. In its PreHearing Statement Respondent stands in opposition to the merits of the claim filed against it by the Complainant. There has been no agreement between the parties relative to the issues to be decided.

   The Court finds that the Complainant's request for dismissal is timely and consistent with the provisions for such voluntary dismissal as authorized in Rule 41 (a)(2).

   IT IS ORDERED that

      CLEMENT J. KICHUK
      Administrative Law Judge