Office of Administrative Law Judges 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-6577 (415) 744-6569
(FAX)
In the Matter of
CASE NO.'s
1998-ERA-45
1998-ERA-46
1998-ERA-47
1998-ERA-48
DON HODGIN, JESSIE JAYMES,
SCOTT BRUNDRIDGE, and
RAYMOND RICHARDSON,
Complainants,
vs.
FLUOR DANIEL NORTHWEST, INC.,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY
The above-captioned matter arises from complaints filed by the complainants in April of 1998 under
the provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S. C. §5851. The complainants allege that Respondent
laid them off in violation of law on account of their outspoken support for some whistleblowers. On August 5, 1999, the
four complainants in this matter and five complainants in a similar matter now pending before Administrative Law Judge
Paul Mapes jointly filed a civil action in a Superior Court for the State of Washington alleging that the discriminatory
conduct alleged in these two matters also violated the laws of the State of Washington. Six days later, these same
complainants filed motions requesting that all proceedings in this matter and the matter pending before Judge Mapes be
stayed until the conclusion of the parallel state court proceeding. On August 16, 1999, the respondent filed a reply
strongly opposing these motions.
ANALYSIS
All parties appear to agree that the complainants' stay request is governed by the standards set forth
in the Supreme Court's decisions in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 US. 800
(1976), and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1982).1 In the Colorado River decision, the Supreme Court
[Page 2]
1SeeHoffman v. Bossert,
94-CAA-4 (Sec'y Nov. 20, 1995)(noting that the standard for deciding whether to stay an administrative action is the
same as the standard applied to requests for stays of district court actions).
2 Indeed, the complainants
seem to anticipate this possibility by specifically observing on page 9 of
their motion that the burden of proof in this proceeding is different than the
burden of proof in the state proceeding.
3 A detailed analysis of the Department of
Labor's lack of authority to issue subpoenas in whistleblower proceedings is set forth in a recent law review article.
See Stephen Smith, Due Process and the Subpoena Power In Federal Environmental, Health, and Safety
Whistleblower Proceedings, 32 U.S.F. L. Rev. 533 (1998).