DATE: March 10, 1992

CASE NO. 87-TSC-5


IN THE MATTER OF

JEFF SYMMES,

          COMPLAINANT,
v.


PURDUE UNIVERSITY,

          RESPONDENT

BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR



                FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

      Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order (R.D. and
O.) of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in thls case arising under the
employee protection provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act, as
amended (TSCA), 15 U.S.C.  2622 (1988), and the employee protection
provisions of several other federal statutes. [1]  The ALJ recommended
dismissal of the complaint, finding that it was untimely and that
equitable tolling was inapplicable.  The parties agreed that this 
matter would be decided based on the documentary evidence of record,
the parties' briefs and stipulations.  Respondent filed a brief before
me in support of the ALJ's recommended decision.

    Under the pertinent provisions of the TSCA and the
implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R.  24.3(b) (1991), a
complainant is required to file any complaint within thirty days
after the occurrence of the alleged violation.  See Note 1,
supra.  The record fully supports the ALJ's findings of
fact and conclusions of law, and his analysis is consistent with
the case law and prior decisions of the Secretary on the issues of
timeliness and equitable tolling.  Delaware State College
v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258-261 (1980); Yap v. Bay
Area Environmental. Inc., Case No. 90-SWD-4, Sec. Final
Dec. and Order, Aug. 30, 1991, slip op. at 1-2;  Jenkins v.
City of Portland, Case No. 88-WPC-4, Sec. Dec. and
Order of Remand, May 22, 1991, slip op. at 6-7; McGarvey v. EG
& G Idaho. Inc., Case No. 87-ERA-31, Sec. Final Dec. and
[PAGE 2]
Order, Sept. 10, 1990, slip op. at 2.  As the ALJ found, the
alleged violation occurred on or about May 16, 1986, when
Complainant received written notification of his discharge, to be
effective on May 30, 1986, and this complaint was untimely filed
on May 4, 1987.  See ALJ's R.D. and O. at 2-3.  Complainant
failed to present any evidence which would support a conclusion of
equitable tolling.  See School District of the City of
Allentown v. Marshall, 657 F.2d 16, 19-21 (3d Cir. 1981). 
Accordingly, I adopt and append the ALJ's R.D. and O. and the
complaint is dismissed.                                            

         SO ORDERED.                                            

                                     LYNN MARTIN   
                                     Secretary of Labor            

                                [ENDNOTES]


[1] In his complaint, Complainant named the TSCA; the Water
Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.  1367 (1988); the Safe Drinking
Water Act, 42 U.S.C.  300j-9(i) (1988); the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C.  7622 (1988); the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C.  6971
(1988); the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42
U.S.C.  5851 (1988); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.  9610 (1988). The Secretary
has jurisdiction over cases arising under the employee protection
provisions of all of these statutes, each of which has a
thirty-day time limitation for filing complaints.  I construe the
ALJ's references to "[a]ll the federal" whistleblower laws, R.D.
and O. at 5, to mean those laws alleged in the complaint here.