[Page 17]
Conclusion
Accordingly, because Caldwell has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that EG&G discriminated against him in violation of the environmental acts, we DISMISS his complaint.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
WAYNE C. BEYER
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 42 U.S.C.A. § 6971 (West 2003) (SWDA).
2 15 U.S.C.A. § 2622 (West 1998) (TSCA).
3 42 U.S.C.A. § 7622 (West 2003) (CAA).
4 42 U.S.C.A. § 9610 (West 2005) (CERCLA).
5 33 U.S.C.A. § 1367 (West 2001) (FWPCA).
6 42 U.S.C.A. § 300j-9(i) (West 2003) (SDWA).
7 OSHA's ruling letter treats Caldwell's suspension and termination complaints as a single complaint.
8 See 29 C.F.R. § 24.4(d)(3).
9 Jenkins v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, ARB No. 98-146, ALJ No. 1988-SWD-2, slip op. at 9 (ARB Feb. 28, 2003).
10 29 C.F.R. § 24.8. See also Secretary's Order No. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002) (delegating to the ARB the Secretary's authority to review cases arising under, inter alia, the statutes listed at 29 C.F.R. § 24.1(a)).
11 See Sayre v. VECO Alaska, Inc., ARB No. 03-069, ALJ No. 2000-CAA-007, slip op. at 2 (ARB May 31, 2005).
12 72 Fed. Reg. 44,956 (Aug. 10, 2007), codified at 29 C.F.R. § 24.110(b).
13 Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs. v. Herman, 146 F.3d 12, 21 (1st Cir. 1998).
14 Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) (the parties have the burden of calling the court's attention to any pertinent and significant authorities that came to the parties' attention after their briefs have been filed).
15 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 2000); 29 C.F.R. § 24.8; Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp. v. Herman, 115 F.3d 1568, 1571-1572 (11th Cir. 1997); Berkman v. U.S. Coast Guard Acad., ARB No. 98- 056, ALJ Nos. 1997-CAA-002, 1997-CAA-009, slip op. at 15 (ARB Feb. 29, 2000).
16 Morriss v. LG&E Power Servs., LLC., ARB No. 05-047, ALJ No. 2004-CAA-014, slip op. at 31-32 (ARB Feb. 28, 2007); Seetharaman v. General Elec. Co., ARB No. 03-029, ALJ No. 2002-CAA-021, slip op. at 5 (ARB May 28, 2004); Lopez v. Serbaco, Inc., ARB No. 04-158, ALJ No. 2004-CAA-005, slip op. at 4 (ARB Nov. 29, 2006); Schlagel v. Dow Corning Corp., ARB No. 02-092, ALJ No. 2001-CER-001, slip op. at 5 (ARB Apr. 30, 2004).
17 Morriss, ARB No. 05-047; Schlagel, slip op. at 6 n.1.
18 See 29 C.F.R. § 24.2(a) (emphasis added). See also 42 U.S.C.A. § 6971(a); 15 U.S.C.A. § 2622(a); 42 U.S.C.A. § 7622(a); 42 U.S.C.A. § 9610(a); 33 U.S.C.A. § 1367(a); 42 U.S.C.A. § 300j-9(i)(1)(A). Accord Morriss, slip op. at 31-32.
19 According to Caldwell, in late 2002 or early 2003, he attended a meeting at which Thomas stated that "no check valves were to be placed in agent lines." Tr. at 1477-78, 1517. Caldwell testified that after the meeting he told Thomas that there were still check valves in part of the agent sampling system for the utility line. Tr. at 1478.
20 See 29 C.F.R. § 24.2(a) (emphasis added). See also 42 U.S.C.A. § 6971(a); 15 U.S.C.A. § 2622(a); 42 U.S.C.A. § 7622(a); 42 U.S.C.A. § 9610(a); 33 U.S.C.A. § 1367(a); 42 U.S.C.A. § 300j-9(i)(1)(A).
21 Passaic Valley Sewerage Comm'rs v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 992 F.2d 474, 479 (3d Cir. 1993); Schlagel, slip op. at 9.
22 Jenkins, slip op. at 15 (ARB Feb. 29, 2003).
23 See 29 C.F.R. § 24.2(a).
24 Cf. Williams v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 157 Fed. Appx. 564 (4th Cir. 2005) (letter from teacher to parents erroneously stating that drinking water contained lead is not protected activity); Patey v. Sinclair Oil Corp., ARB No. 96-174, ALJ No. 1996-STA-020 (ARB Nov. 12, 1996) (finding that when employer responded to his safety concerns, employee's continued complaints about them were not protected).
25 Negron v. Vieques Air Link, Inc., ARB No. 04-021, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-010, slip op. at 5 (ARB Dec. 30, 2004).
26 Gary v. Chautauqua Airlines, ARB No. 04-112, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-038, slip op. at 4 (ARB Jan 31, 2006).
27 Gain v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., ARB No. 03-108, ALJ No. 2002-SWD-004 (ARB June 30, 2004); Nichols v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., ARB No. 97-088, ALJ No. 1997-STA-002 (ARB July 17, 1997).
28 Guay v. Burford's Tree Surgeons, Inc., ARB No. 06-131, ALJ No. 2005-STA-045 (ARB June 30, 2008).
29 See discussion, supra, at pp. 10-11.
30 See St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507-508 (1993); Jenkins, slip op. at 14.
31 29 C.F.R. § 24.104(d)(3).
32 Robinson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., ARB No. 04-041, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-022, slip op. at 9 (ARB Nov. 30, 2005).
33 Barber v. Planet Airways, Inc., ARB No. 04-056, ALJ No. 2002-AIR-019, slip op. at 6-7 (ARB Apr. 28, 2006).
34 Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147-48 (2000).
35 Martin v. United Parcel Ser., ARB No. 05-040, ALJ No. 2003-STA-009, slip op. at 9 (ARB May 31, 2007).
36 [USDOL/OALJ Reporter Editor's note: The original ARB decision does not link to any text at footnote 36, and the numbering of the footnotes is mismatched. This HTML version puts the footnotes back in logical order.
On Dec. 10, 2008, the ARB issued an Errata, correcting the footnote numbering.]
37 Complainant's Initial Brief (I.B.) at 25.
38 Id. at 8.
39 R. D. & O. at 20.
40 See Kester, slip op. at 8.
41 See Jenkins, slip op. at 16-17.