In the instant matter, the Complainant's requests for discovery would not yield information that would have assisted him in proving his prima facie case. Therefore, even had the Respondent provided the requested information, the Complainant still would have been unable to make a prima facie showing of discrimination.
[Page 7]
Having thoroughly reviewed the entire record again, I find that the Complainant has failed to set forth a prima facie case of proscribed behavior, or provide a full statement of the acts and omissions, with pertinent dates, which are believed to constitute a violation. In addition, Complainant's complaint, as pleaded, has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly,
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the Complaint of Syed M A. Hasan be, and is hereby, dismissed.
ROBERT J. LESNICK
Administrative Law Judge
RJL/SR/dmr
NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order will automatically become the final order of the Secretary unless, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 24.8, a petition for review is timely filed with the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. Such a petition for review must be received by the Administrative Review Board within ten business days of the date of this Recommended Decision and Order, and shall be served on all parties and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 24.8 and 24.9, as amended by 63 Fed. Reg. 6614 (1998).
[ENDNOTES]
1 Specifically, Complainant filed safety complaints against Commonwealth Edison, his former employer.
3See Debtors' Answering Brief in Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Disqualification of Debtor's Attorneys and for Default Judgment (Jan. 15, 2003)(citing Elonex I.P., Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc., 142 F.Supp.2d 579, 581 (D.Del. 2001)(quoting Cohen v. Oasin, 844 F.Supp. 1065, 1067 (E.D. Pa. 1994)).
4 "Protecting the integrity of the judicial system ... is not a separate ground for disqualification." Debtors' Answering Brief at 5 (Jan. 15, 2003)(quoting Wade v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 225 F. Supp.2d 1323, 1331 (S.D. Ala. 2002)).
5 "I do not have even one per cent confidence in this court's ability to conduct this case fairly." See, e.g., Complainant's Response to Respondent's Submittal of January 13, 2003 (Jan. 22, 2003).
6 As noted above, the Board determined my RD&O to be null and void by operation of law due to the stay required by the bankruptcy claim.
7See, e.g., Brief for the Federal Respondent in Opposition, Hasan v. U.S. Dep't. of Labor, ____ U.S. ____ (2003)(No. 02-592).
8Hasan v. U.S. Dep't. of Labor, 298 F.3d 914, 917 (10th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____ (2003)(No. 02-592); Hasan v. Florida Power & Light Co., 2000-ERA-12 (ARB May 17, 2001), aff'd, 35 F. Appx. 855 (11th Cir. 2002)); Hasan v. U.S. Dep't. of Labor, 31 Fed. Appx. 328 (7th Cir. 2002).
9Hasan v. U.S. Dep't. of Labor, 298 F.3d 914, 917 (10th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____ (2003)(No. 02-592).