skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Images of lawyers, judges, courthouse, gavel
September 25, 2008         DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Wilkinson v. Texas Utilities, 92-ERA-16 (Sec'y July 13, 1993)


DATE:  July 13, 1993
CASE NO. 92-ERA-16

IN THE MATTER OF

YVONNE WILKINSON,

               COMPLAINANT,

     v.

TEXAS UTILITIES,

               RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                            DECISION AND ORDER

     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
(R. D. and O.) issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in
this case arising under the employee protection provision of the
Energy Reorganization Act, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §
5851 (1988).  The ALJ recommended dismissing the complaint on the
ground that it was untimely and that Complainant did not
establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge under
the ERA.  Respondent filed a brief before me in support of the
ALJ's recommended decision.  Complainant did not submit a brief.
     I adopt the ALJ's factual findings, R. D. and O. at 5-7.  I
also agree with and adopt the ALJ's analysis that the complaint
was not timely filed [1]  and that Complainant has not alleged or
established any basis to claim that the statutory filing limit
should be equitably tolled in this case.  R. D. and O. at 7-8. 
     In addition, I agree with the ALJ's finding that even if the
complaint had been timely filed, Complainant did not establish a
prima facie case of a violation of the ERA.  R. D. and O. at 10. 
Complainant consistently stated that she did not raise any safety
issues concerning Respondent's operation of a nuclear power
plant.  Rather, she insisted that Respondent had discriminated
against her on the basis of her sex.  Since the ERA does not
protect employees against discrimination on the basis of sex, 

[PAGE 2] Complainant has not stated a prima facie case of a violation of the ERA's employee protection provision. Therefore, I adopt the ALJ's R. D. and O., which is appended. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. ROBERT B. REICH Secretary of Labor Washington D.C. [ENDNOTES] [1] The 30-day limitation for filing a complaint under the ERA's employee protection provision, at 42 U.S.C. 5851(b)(1) (1988), was changed to 180 days after Complainant filed this complaint. See Sec. 2902(b) of Pub. L. No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (Oct. 24, 1992). The new 180-day limitation period applies to complaints filed after its effective date. See Sec. 2902(i) of Pub. L. No. 102-486.



Phone Numbers