DATE: December 7, 1994
CASE NO. 94-ERA-26
IN THE MATTER OF
GREGORY A. GERGANS, M.D.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
EDWARD HINES, JR., HOSPITAL
NORTH CHICAGO, VETERANS
AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On September 27, 1994, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
issued a [Recommended] Order of Dismissal in this case arising
under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA),
42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988). The ALJ concluded that the case
should be dismissed based on Complainant's written request for
withdrawal, dated September 23, 1994.
I agree with the ALJ's ruling to grant Complainant's request
for voluntary dismissal. Where a complainant in a case arising
under 29 C.F.R. Part 24 (1993) has sought a voluntary dismissal,
Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been
applied. SeeHaymes v. D.P. Associates, Inc., Case
No. 94-SDW-00001, Sec. Ord., Aug. 16, 1994; Hendrix v. Duke
Power Co., Case No. 90-ERA-32, Sec. Ord., Sept. 25, 1990,
citing Nolder v. Raymond Kaiser Engineers, Inc., Case No.
84-ERA-5, Sec. Dec., June 28, 1985, slip op. at 6-8. Since here,
Respondent did not file the functional equivalent of either an
answer to the
[PAGE 2]
complaint or a motion for summary judgment, Rule 41(a)(1)(i) is
the applicable rule. Haymes, supra; Hendrix,
supra. Accordingly, this case IS DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i). [1]
SO ORDERED.
ROBERT B. REICH
Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C.
[ENDNOTES]
[1] I note that under the regulations implementing the ERA,
disposition of complaints, including Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissals,
can be effected only by final order of the Secretary. 29 C.F.R.
§ 24.6 (1993); seeBrock v. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Case No. 90-ERA-19, Sec. Ord., June 28, 1993, slip
op. at 2; Avery v. B & W Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant,
Case No. 91-ERA-8, Sec. Ord., Oct. 21, 1991, slip op. at 3;
Hendrix, slip op. at 1 n.1.