DATE: December 13, 1995
CASE NO. 94-TSC-5


IN THE MATTER OF

JUDY K. STEPHENSON,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS & SPACE
ADMINISTRATION,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                           ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

     This case arises under the employee protection provision of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988).  On 
September 28, 1995, I issued an Order remanding the case to the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to permit the parties an
opportunity to submit evidence in support of and in opposition to
Respondent's motion for summary disposition.  
     On October 30 and 31, 1995, Complainant filed the following
before me:  Request for Interlocutory Appeal, Motion for Summary
Reversal, Motion to Deem the ALJ Hostile, Motion to Remand to
Another ALJ and Motion for Stay Pending Further Secretary of
Labor Review.  These filings are grounded solely on the ALJ's
denial of Complainant's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions
Admitted or in the Alternative to Compel Proper Answers to First
Requests for Admissions.  The ALJ determined that that motion was
not sufficiently specific "to show complainant's entitlement to 
[PAGE 2]
the requested relief."  
     Respondent opposes the five filings now before me, citing
Department of Labor regulations for recusal and reassignment of
ALJs that require any such motion to be filed with the presiding
ALJ.  29 C.F.R. § 18.31 (1995).  Because the motion was
filed before me, Respondent argues that it is premature. 
Respondent also points out that, contrary to regulation, the
motion lacks a supporting affidavit.  Finally, Respondent argues
that because it is complying with discovery ordered by the ALJ,
no stay is warranted.
     I agree that any motion for recusal and reassignment should
be filed, at least initially, with the ALJ who now is proceeding
with the case on remand.  It also appears reasonable for
Complainant, whose discovery motion the ALJ denied as not 
sufficiently specific, simply to file a more detailed motion.[1]  
Accordingly, Complainant's motions ARE DENIED.
     SO ORDERED.



                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.





[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] 
   Contrary to Complainant's suggestion, this case does not
resemble Spearman v. Roadway Express, Inc., Case No. 92-
STA-1, Sec. Dec., June 30, 1993, aff'd sub nom. Roadway
Express, Inc. v. Reich, No. 93-3787, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS
22924 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 1994), where the ALJ repeatedly ruled on
the respondent's motions without awaiting expiration of the
period permitted under the regulations for response, improperly
limited the complainant's case, and subjected the complainant to
an unnecessary demonstration.  The instant case also differs
procedurally from Spearman, where the recusal motion was
filed with the Secretary after the ALJ had issued the
recommended decision which permitted complete review of the
manner in which the ALJ handled the case.