skip navigational links United States Department of Labor
May 9, 2009        
DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
DOL Home USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Ackison v. Detroit Edison Co., 90-ERA-38 (Sec'y Aug. 2, 1990)


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

SECRETARY OF LABOR
WASHINGTON. D C.

DATE: August 2, 1990
CASE NO. 90-ERA-0038

IN THE MATTER OF

GARY ACKISON,
    COMPLAINANT,

    v.

DETROIT EDISON COMPANY,
    RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
OF DISMISSAL

   Before me for review is the Recommended Order of Dismissal (R.O.) of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Charles P. Rippey, issued on May 16, 1990, in the captioned case which arises under the employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §5851 (1982) In an Order Establishing Briefing Schedule, dated May 30, 1990, the parties were given an opportunity to submit briefs in support of or in opposition to the ALJ's recommended decision. The parties relied on briefs previously submitted to the ALJ.

    Based on a review of the record in this case, I agree with the ALJ's R.O. granting the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the


[Page 2]

complaint as untimely filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §5851 (b) (1). The record establishes that Complainant filed a complaint dated April 18, 1990, alleging unlawful discharge from employment by Respondent. The ALJ correctly concluded that the complaint was untimely because the thirty day period for filing this complaint under the ERA commenced on February 5, 1990, the date that complainant received notice of his discharge from Respondent. See English v. General Electric Company, Case No. 85-ERA-2, Dep. Sec. Final Decision and Order, January 13, 1987, (hereafter English) slip op. at 4-11, aff'd sub nom. English v. Whitfield, 858 F.2d 957 (4th Cir. 1988); Nunn v. Duke Power Company, Case No. 84-ERA-27, Dep. Sec. Decision and order of Remand, July 30, 1987, slip op. at 13-17. Additionally, the ALJ's determination that the 30-day filing period was not tolled by Complainant's utilization of internal grievance procedures is in accordance with the case law and the prior decisions of the Secretary on the issue of timeliness and equitable tolling. See Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258-261 (1980); Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229, 236-240 (1976); School District of the City of Allentown v. Marshall, 657 F.2d 16, 19-21 (3d Cir. 1981); English, slip op. at 4-11. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to support a conclusion that equitable tolling is warranted.

   Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED.

   SO ORDERED.

       ELIZABETH DOLE
       Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.



Phone Numbers