UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Case No. 80-SDWA-1
In the Matter of
DONALD LEE RAY
Complainant
vs.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON
COUNTY AND THE URBAN
OBSERVATORY OF METROPOLITAN
NASHVILLE - UNIVERSITY
CENTERS
Respondents
DECISION OF THE SECRETARY
This is a proceeding under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (38 Stat. 1660, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 300f, et seq.),
hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 1450(i) of
the Act (38 Stat. 1692; 42 U.S.C. 300 j-9(i)) prohibits
discrimination against an employee because of actions to
carry out the purposes of the Act. It provides that an
employee who believes he has been discriminated against
in violation of that section may file a complaint with the
Secretary of Labor within 30 days after the violation occurs.
An earlier proceeding (Case No. 79-SDWA-2) related
to a number of alleged acts of discrimination against the
complainant by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville
and Davidson County, Tennessee and several officials. Such
acts included his transfer on February 23, 1979 from his
job as head of a chemistry laboratory to another job in
Project Prevent/Recover, a project concerned with management
of hazardous material. After a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge, the Judge issued a recommended decision,
dated June 5, 1979, in which he found that Ray's job
transfer was not a violation of the Act and that he did not file
a timely complaint with respect to other alleged acts of
discrimination. In a decision dated July 13, 1979, I
concluded that the Judge's decision was correct and I adopted
[Page 2]
it as my own and dismissed the complaints involved in that
proceeding.
On September 25, 1979, Ray filed the complaint under
consideration in this proceding. On October 23, 1979, he
filed a supplemental complaint. He alleged that the
respondents had engaged in various discriminatory actions against
him, which included bringing disciplinary charges against
him on October 4, 1979 and discharging him from his
employment on October 9, 1979. A hearing on Ray's complaints
was held before an Administrative Law Judge. On March 18,
1980, the Judge issued a recommended decision in which he
found that the respondents did not discriminate against
Ray because of activity protected by the Act, and Section
1450(i) of the Act had not been violated; that Ray was
discharged from his employment because of factors unrelated
to such protected activity, including poor performance,
personnel conflicts, and inability to adjust to usual and
normal employment situations. Accordingly, the Judge
recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
A study of the record convinces me that the recommended
decision of the Judge is correct, and I adopt such decision
as my own. I find that the respondents did not discriminate
against Donald Lee Ray because of activity to carry out
the purposes of the Act and that they did not violate
Section 1450(i) thereof. Accordingly the complaint and
supplemental complaint filed by Ray in September and
October, 1979, respectively, are dismissed.
Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 14th day of April, 1980.
