U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
ARB CASE NO. 98-041
ALJ CASE NO. 98-ERA-6
DATE: June 22, 1998
In the Matter of:
STEPHEN L. JACKSON,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
NORTHEAST UTILITIES COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ ) submitted a Recommended Order of
Dismissal in this case arising under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §5851 (1988 and Supp. V
1993), recommending that the complaint be dismissed on two grounds. The ALJ found that
Complainant did not file a request for a hearing after the adverse determination by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and that Complainant failed to respond
to an Order to Show Cause issued by the ALJ.
[Page 2]
1. Background
Complainant filed a complaint under the ERA against Respondent Northeast
Utilities Company on September 4, 1997. On October 15, 1997, OSHA sent a letter to
Complainant notifying him of its finding that discrimination was not a factor in the adverse actions
which were the subject of the complaint. There is nothing in the record to show when
Complainant actually received the OSHA letter. OSHA referred the case to the Office of
Administrative Law Judges on October 16, 1997, and the ALJ issued a Notice of Hearing and Pre-hearing Order on October 28, 1997. Subsequently, a review of the file by the ALJ showed that
no request for a hearing had been made by Complainant. The ALJ on November 6, 1997
therefore issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. Complainant
did not file a response to the order to show cause. The ALJ recommended that the complaint be
dismissed both because Complainant did not file a request for a hearing, as required under 29
C.F.R. §24.4(d)(2)(i), and because Complainant did not respond to the order to show cause.
2. Discussion
Because Complainant did not respond to the ALJ's Order to Show Cause we
agree with the ALJ that the complaint should be dismissed. The regulations implementing the
ERA authorize dismissal of a claim when the complainant fails to respond to an order of the ALJ.
29 C.F.R. §24.5(e)(4)(i)(B).
Accordingly, the complaint in this case is dismissed.