U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Case No. 85-ERA-4
In the Matter of
WORLEY O. PUCKETT
Complainant
v.
COMSTOCK ENGINEERING, INC.
Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO
SETTLEMENT
This proceeding arises under the Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 5851, et seq.) hereinafter
referred to as the Act. This legislation prohibits a Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensee from discharging or otherwise
discriminating against an employee who has engaged in
activity protected under the Act. The Act is implemented by
regulations designated to protect so-called "whistleblower"
employees from retaliation or discriminatory actions by their
employers. (29 CFR Part 24) An employee who believes that he or
she has been discriminated against in violation of the Act may
file a complaint within 30 days after the occurrence of the
alleged violation.
On September 5, 1984, Worley O. Puckett, the Complainant in
[Page 2]
this case, filed a timely complaint of alleged discrimination and
retaliation. (Complainant's Exhibit 35) In his prehearing
exchange, the Complainant alleges that he was hired by the
Respondent in May 1984 as a level three quality control inspector;
that during the course of his employment with Respondent he
took several qualifying tests to hold that position; that he
consistently did better on these tests than numerous of
Respondent's quality control inspectors; that during the course
of his employment with Respondent, Complainant reviewed
Respondent's welding procedures and documents; that as a result
of such review the Complainant found numerous situations where
these procedures and documents did not comply with standard
procedures and/or NRC rules and regulations; that the Complainant
repeatedly reported these noncompliances to Respondent's management;
that Complainant finally recommended that a stop work order
be issued; that Respondent's management was very upset by this
recommendation even though it eventually had to implement a large
part of Complainant's recommendations; and that as a result of
the Complainant's actions he was terminated by the Respondent on
August 27, 1984.
The Respondent denies that the Complainant was discriminated
or retaliated against in any manner.
The issue presented for resolution in this proceeding is:
was Complainant discharged or otherwise discriminated against by
Respondent in violation of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851, et seq.
A hearing on this matter was commenced on December 12, 1984,
in Cincinnati, Ohio. Administrative Law Judge's Exhibits 1-3,
Complainant's Exhibits 1-41 and Respondent's Exhibits 1-17 were
admitted into evidence without objection. During a recess after
the close of the Complainant's case, the parties indicated that
they would like additional time to discuss settlement. This
request was granted. When the hearing was reconvened, the
parties indicated that a settlement had been reached. Therefore,
a motion was made to continue the hearing in order to permit the
parties an opportunity to prepare a settlement agreement. After
hearing the proposed terms of the settlement, I granted the joint
motion of the parties.
On December 26, 1984, the Complainant, by and through his
counsel, has moved that this case be dismissed, with prejudice.
[Page 3]
In support of his motion, Complainant states that the parties
have entered into and properly executed a Settlement Agreement,
Release And waiver, dated December 26, 1984, which disposes of
this matter in its entirety.1
