DATE:  April 19, 1995
CASE NO. 92-SDW-2


IN THE MATTER OF

PAUL C. DAUGHERTY,
          
          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

GENERAL PHYSICS CORPORATION,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                    FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

             This case was brought by Complainant Paul C. Daugherty
pursuant to the employee protection provisions of the Water
Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988); the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (1988); the Toxic Substance Control
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988); the Safe Drinking Water Act,
42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) (1988); the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988); the Energy Reorganization Act, 42
U.S.C. § 5851 (1988); and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7622 (1988) (the environmental whistleblower provisions). 
Daugherty alleged that General Physics Corporation (General
Physics) fired him in retaliation for activity protected by the
environmental whistleblower provisions.
     Following an evidentiary hearing the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. and
O.) (attached) concluding that Daugherty had not established a 
[PAGE 2]
prima facie case of retaliation.  The ALJ recommended that
the case be dismissed.  Because the ALJ's findings of fact are
amply supported by the evidence and his conclusions of law are
correct, I adopt his R. D. and O. and dismiss the case.
     In order to establish a prima facie case in an
environmental whistleblower case, a complainant must show that:
(1) the complainant engaged in protected conduct; (2) the
employer was aware of that conduct; and (3) the employer took
some adverse action against him.  Dean Darty v. Zack Company
of Chicago, Case No. 82-ERA-2, Sec. Dec., Apr. 25, 1983, slip
op. at 7-8.  The complainant also must present evidence
sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was
the likely reason for the adverse action.  Id.  See also
McCuistion v. TVA, Case No. 89-ERA-6, Sec. Dec., Nov. 13,
1991, slip op at 5-6; Mackowiak v. University Nuclear Systems,
Inc., 735 F.2d 1159, 1162 (6th Cir. 1983).  As the ALJ
accurately concluded, Daugherty neither pled nor presented any
evidence from which one could conclude that he engaged in
protected activity within the meaning of the environmental
whistleblower provisions.  Without some evidence to support this
essential element of a prima facie case, Daugherty's
complaint must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
     For the foregoing reasons I adopt the ALJ's recommended
decision and order and dismiss this case.
     SO ORDERED.



                                   ROBERT B. REICH
                                   Secretary of Labor


Washington, D.C.