. The complaint was
investigated by an U.S. Department of Labor investigator, whose
report dated August 17, 1992 found the complaint has no merit.
Thereafter, Carter telegramed the Office of Administrative Law
Judges for a hearing. I was assigned the case and held a
telephone conference on August 28, 1992. On the same date, Carter
requested in writing a postponement of 60 days in order to give
him time to retain counsel. I granted his request and held a
hearing on November 5, 1992 in Casa Grande, Arizona. The record
consists of the transcript (T); plaintiff's exhibits (P 1, 6, 7,
8, 10-17); defendants exhibits (D1-26); and post-hearing
depositions of Tom Martin and Jim Rotz. I have considered the
entire record and the briefs submitted by the plaintiff and
defendant.
FINDING OF FACT
Carter was employed by ED2 from July 2, 1984
until his termination on August 3, 1992. At all relevant time
period of this case, he had two supervisors, Tom Martin, ED2's
general manager, and Jim Rotz, ED2's superintendent. Martin came
to this Job in July of 1989; his predecessor was Bob Metheny.
[Page 2]
Apparently Metheny promised Carter that he would get a pay raise
to the equivalent of a lineman's wage. As shown below,
this resulted in a wage dispute, a critical issue in this case.
From 1984 to approximatley December 3, 1991
Carter was regularly promoted with accompanying pay raises and
responsibilities. He also worked Independently with little
supervision. Throughout this period he only received one
reprimand on June 24, 1985 for withholding information on the
cause of a circuit outage (D2). However three other employees
were similarly reprimanded and Carter te career path was not
hampered.
In October of 1990 Tom Martin sent Carter to a
seminar to be trained for PCB compliance. After the seminar
Martin told Carter that he would be ED2's environmental
complaince officer, with responsibilities toward record keeping,
disposal and testing of PCB materials. This was a new position
since previously ED2 had no formal environmental compliance
program. Additionally, Carter was assigned responsibility in
purchasing (T30-31).
ED2 is a small employer with only 18 employees,
including 4 employees working in the office (T315). Martin and
Rotz, ED2 management, stated that Carter with these responsilites
was a trusted employee. Martin stated that in order to do his
'Sob properly Carter not only was sent to training seminars but
was given a free hand to seek information and make recomendation
and implementation regarding environmental complaince (Martin
deposition at 9-10). Martin stated that when he first came to ED2
he knew the company had no formal complaince program but was
keeping records for dlepo~al of capacitors removed in the past.
(Id. at 7). Martin also knew that after change of law, capacitors
with PCB could no longer be used as they must be disposed of and
replaced by noncontaminated capacitors. Martin stated that after
coming to ED2 he made proper inquiries and ascertained that the
law has been complied with (Id. at 11).
Carter stated that after taking over his new
job he discussed with Martin and Rotz on the need to start a
compliance program. He stated that since the discussion was
unfruitful he wrote a memo on February 19, 1991 informing Martin
and Rotz on what he learned in the seminars and his
recommendations to formalize an environmental compliance program
(T36; P1)
Carter stated that since Martin and Rotz did
not respond to his memo and he was responsible for environmental
compliance he initiated a survey and found 13 oil leaking
transformers on ED2 property. He stated that he wrote a memo to
Martin regarding these transformers which were unlabeled and
untested end may contain PCB. He stated that Martin responded
[Page 3]
suggesting Carter to make the necesary tests (T36).
Carter stated that in June of 1991 he
received a call from Rich Berguist who was doing an environmental
survey for investors interested in purchasing a mobile home park
in Casa Grande, on which some tranaformers were located. Berquist
asked for ED2 documentation to show whether or not the
transformers were PCB contaminate. Carter stated that he
discussed the request with Martin and Rotz and Rotz after some
delay did provide a lineman to make the investigation and ED2 was
able to supply the documentation to Berquist (T41).
Carter stated that in the first week of July,
1991 he did another survey of leaking transformers in other mobil
home parks. As result he prepared and delivered a memo dated July
5, 1991 to Martin and Rotz, and Martin responded allowing Carter
to test the transformers (T41).
According to Carter's allegation, on July 16,
1991 he discussed the possibility of buried capacitors on ED2
property with Martin, based on what learned from fellow
employees, Daryl Ford in May of 1991 and Dewayan Christian in
June of 1991. Carter alleged that Martin's response to this
potential environmental hazard was, "I don't want to hear
about this. I don't want to know anything about it. And I don't
want you to talk about it anymore." (T42-47).
According to Carter's allegation, because of
Martin 'a negative response on the previous day, he delivered a
memo dated July 17, 1991 to Martin. Carter alleged that he did
not address the memo to Rotz because Rotz was clearly aware of
the buried capacitors (T47-49). The alleged memo, the existence
of which is in dispute, reads: "This memorandum's purpose is
to confirm your knowledge of the burial of PCB materials
by district employees following the instruction of managment from
the year 1977 through the year 1984...In my opinion, it would be
advantageous to the District to undertake an investigative effort
to locate and exhume any many capacitors as possible for the
purpose of proper disposal according to 40 CFR 761 in order to
inhibit any effort on the part of any disgruntled employees to do
financial damage to the District and possibly destroy your career
as a manager..." (emphasis added) (P6).
Carter's next memo on environmental compliance
was on August 7, 1991 wherein he alerted Martin of the possible
requirement for ED2 to obtain an EPA Permit for storm water
discharges (P7). The complete memo includes the following
handwritten response from Martin" "Walter, please
keep me advised on the status of this ." (emphasis added)
(P7). It is noteworthy that Carter's counsel initially offered
into evidence the incomplete memo and only after voir daire
examination by ED2's counsel did Carter admit that the
[Page 4]
complete memo included Martin's response (T53-56).
Carter's next memo on environmental compliance
to Martin and Rotz was dated November 1B, 1991. This memo, stored
under the heading "fuels." in a computer Carter and
Rotz shared, was inadvertently discovered by Rotz on December 2,
1991, a Monday after the Thanksgiving weekend. Martin saw the
memo either the some day or the next day. The memo reads in part,
"after several attempts to gain substantial support of the
managment at ED-2 in correcting a situation that could easily
prove costly I have decided to take more positive action. I am
certain that a large number of mineral oil filled transformers
and PCB power capacitors are buried (out of regulatory
compliance) on ED-2 property as well as at various other
locations around to district. ...My recommendation to you, the
managment, is that we first gain from our employees as much
information as possible concerning the approximate locations of
these units, hire an independent enviromental assessor to
determine their precise location and then take the time to exhume
the units and dispose of them properly. I am placing my own
employment security at risk by making these recommendations but
it is likely in my opinion that the company is at great
financial risk due to negligence exhibited thus far by our
management and it would seem reasonable to remedy the
situation as soon as possible." (emphasis added) (D4).
Carter claims that he did not immediately deliver the memo to
Martin and Rotz because it was incomplete. He claims a completed
memo was delivered by his wife to Martin on December 4, 1991
(P10). However, a comparison of the two copies indicate they are
virtually identical.
Contrary to Carter's allegation, Martin stated
that he never had a discussion with Carter about buried
capacitors on July 16, 1991 and that he never saw Carter's
alleged memo dated July 17, 1991. He stated that he first learned
about the possibility of buried capacitors from Carter's
November 1 8 , 19 9 1 memo. He stated that if indeed there
were buried capacitors on ED2 property, it would be
"catatrophe" since it would mean violation of law and
potential penalties against ED2 (Martin deposition at 19-20; 30).
Martin stated that before the discovery of the November 18,
1991 memo Carter was a trusted employee, but after discovery
he could no longer be bunted. Contrary to Carter's allegation,
Rotz stated that he first learned of the buried capacitors on ED2
property was on December 2, 1991 when he inadvertently discovered
Carter's November 18, 1991 memo (Martin deposition at 24). Rotz
also stated that before discovery of the November 18, 1991
memo Carter was a trusted employee and was relied upon for up-to-date information on environmental compliance (Id. at 30-31).
It is noteworthy that November 18, 1991, the
date of Carter's memo, was also the date of his wage dispute
hearing. The hearing was not completed until December 4, 1991, on
[Page 5]
which date ED2's Board of Directors denied Carter's wage demand,
finding ED2 was not bound by its former general manager's
promise (D5). During the wage dispute, Martin recalled that
Carter tried to Justify his wage demand by going through trash to
get confidential payroll records. He passed himself off as a
representative of the district who was a member of the National
Rural Electrical Company Association. It's an industry trade
group that puts out compensation surveys and he called them up
and said whatever he said, but got himself his own copy. He is
not authorized to have his own copies of that. (Martin deposition
at 44). Although no reprimand was issued for Carter's
unauthorized action, the Board of Directors discussed the matter
and expressed its displeasure to Carter (Id. at 68).
Carter stated that on December 6, 1991 he
consulted with a lawyer-regarding his wage dispute and at the
lawyer's request he contacted EPA regarding ED2's potential
environmental violations. (T290). On February 4, 1991 Martin
wrote a memo, stating in part, The content of the (Carter's
November 18, 1991) memo was never previously made known to me
either verbally or in writing. I can only assume that it was
meant for the EPA in retaliation for Mr. Carter's failure to
obtain the wage he believed he was entitled." (p7).
On December 9, 1991 Carter received a written
reprimand from Martin for his act of insubordination to Rotz on
December 3, 1991 when Carter refuse to give Rotz the pen sword to
the company owned computer (Rotz deposition at 28; D9). Carter's
explanation was that he gave Rotz a secondary password so he
would have full assess to the computer. Carter admitted he did
not release the primary password for fear that Rotz may destroy
or delete files (T302). Martin believed what Carter did was an
act of insubordination (Martin deposition at 27).
On or about December 4, 1991 Carter was removed
from his environmental compliance function and purchasing
function, both positions are positions of trust and Martin and
Rotz believed Carter could no longer be trusted. Carter was
assigned to a newly created position of warehouseman. Martin and
Rotz believed in the new position Carter could be closely
supervised (T309-310; Martin deposition at 31; Rotz deposition at
32).
After the discovery of the November 18, 1991
memo ED2 through its legal counsel formalized written
environmental compliance guidelines on December 6, 1991 (D6).
Based on the guidelines counsel interviewed employees to collect
information to implement environmental compliance. The
information gathered from the interviews were analyzed and a plan
was prepared for compliance purposes (Martin deposition at 36).
In late December of 1991 and early 1992 Martin contacted various
environments] consultants who had expertise in environmental
compliance record keeping and search and discovery of buried
[Page 6]
capacitors. Then metal detectors were secured and ED2 property
wee gridded, in preparation for search (Id. at 37). In February
of 1992 an E.P.A inspector came and interview ED2 employees.
After the inspection, ED2 management discussed with its
consultants on whether an immediate search should begin. The
opinion on this matter was divided, but ED2 finally decided
to do the search (Id. at 38-40).
On March 6, 1992 Carter had a work-related in
Jury from which he was off work for about 16 weeks. On May 26,
1992 Martin wrote to Carter expressing concern as to when he
would return to work and informing him if he did not return by
July 2, 1992 his Job would be filled by someone else (Pll).
Carter returned to work on July 1, 1992 but complained that his
return to work was against his doctor's advice (T256) . I note,
this complaint is unsupported by medical evidence since his
treating physician did release him to "full" duty work
on July 1, 1992 (D27). Martin further stated that when he gave
Carter a deadline for returning to work he was shorthanded
and did not know whether or not Carter would ever return to work
(Martin deposition at 43).
After returning to work on July 1, 1992 Carter
spent the first week doing digging and searching for buried
capacitors on ED2 property. He complained that he was being
singled out to work alone, without much help under hot sun,
because he contacted EPA for ED2 enviornmental compliance
violations (Dll). However, Rotz denied that Carter was ever being
singled out, explaining he only had 14 employees: 8 were linemen
who at the time worked on transformers; 4 were meterman; and 1
mechanic and then Carter. (Rotz deposition at 45-46).
In the first week of July 1992 the Board of
Directors met and performed their annual wage review of
employees. After the review was concluded Carter called Linda
Miller, the officer manager, to find hi. current hourly wage.
After learning he had a reduction of hourly wage of $3.40 (16.53
- 13.13), Carter said to Miller, "I figured they would do
something like this" and "I know you are only doing
what you are told so you don't have to worry about me shooting
at your house ." (emphasis added) (D12).
Miller reported this incident to Martin. On
July 10, 1992 Martin called Carter and Miller into his office. On
the same date Martin delivered a written warning to Carter
informing him that words like shootings are taken seriously and
further instances of intimidating or threatening language
would be considered grounds for dismissal (D16).
On July 9, 1992 Carter delivered a memo to
Martin alleging among other things that ED2 reduced his wage In
retaliation of his contact with EPA (D13). However Martin denied
[Page 7]
the allegation. Martin stated that Carter was paid meterman's
wage when he had responsiblities of environmental complaince and
purchasing but after his removal from these responsibilities
there was no longer Justification for paying the meterman's wage.
Martin stated that after the removal no immediate wage reduction
was made because the Board of Director perform wage review only
once a year in July (D1, Page 8-9, Martin's statement dated
August 6, 1992 taken by the Department of Labor investigator).
On July 13, 1992 Carter delivered a memo to
Martin in which Carter insinuated Martin and Linda Miller had an
"intimate relationship" which led Carter to suspect
"debauching. (D17). Martin showed this memo to Miller.
Miller stated that she is married and Carter's insinuation is
untrue. Miller felt she is defamed. (T370-372).
From October of 1991 to the date of his
termination on August 3, 1992, Carter made the following remarks
to his coworkers:
Dale Cassity stated that in October of 1991
Carter asked to borrow $200 to buy a voice activated tape
recorder to bug the Board of Directors room. Initially Cassity
thought Carter was joking, but after Carter's second request,
Cassity reported the entire episode to Martin (T357). Cassity
also stated that on December 4, 1991, after the Board of
Directors wage demand, Carter said that if he had enough C4
(explosive) he could take care of the Board of Directors problem
(T355,360). Casssity also stated that in December of 1991 he
asked Carter to sign a receipt for a copy of ED2's enviornmental
compliance guidelines, and Carter's response was, "fuck
Tom." (T358-359). Cassity also stated that in 1991 Carter
brought a pistol to work, and Carter was known as proficient with
firearms. Cassity also saw Carter brought paramilitary magazines,
such as Soldiers of Fortune, to work. Cassity stated that because
of Carter's attitude, his guns and magazines, he was very worried
that Carter might go off the "edge." (T361-362).
Cassity also stated that during Carter's 16 weeks leave, the
employees' morale improved considerably, but after his return to
work employees, morale went to "hell.. (T362). Cassity
stated he reported Carter's behavior pattern to Martin (T364).
Bevin Jennings, an employee for 11 years,
stated that on July 7, 1992 Carter said that he wanted to start
his own business and would use his lawsuit against ED2 as his
"lottery." (T380).
Scott Nelson stated on July 10, 1992 Carter
said that he was writing a memo to ED2 everday just to irritate
the management, so he could be fired and start his own business
(T350-351).
Kenny Satterfield, an employee for 11 years,
[Page 8]
saw Carter brought guns to work and was sufficiently expert in
repairing guns. Satterfield stated that when Carter was on the
16-week leave, ED2 employees, morale improved and after his
return to work their morale got worse. (T390)
On July 15, 1992 Casa Grande Dispatch published
an article entitled, "EPA Probes Electrical District No.
2" after Carter had spoken to Steve Wallace, a reporter of
the newpaper. The article reads in part, "Carter...learned
about the possible dumping of PCB-contaminated capacitors from
other employees... t Carter) said he began sending off dozens of
memos recommending to the District managment take
actions to remove the contaminated capacitors. Carter said after
a year of writing memos, little was done. So, he contacted the
EPA.." (P15). On July 24, 1992 the same newspaper published
a response from Martin, which reads in part, "Mr. Carter did
not notify the District of his concern about buried capacitors.
Instead, in early December his supervisor discovered a memo
written on November 18, the some day he appeared at the grievance
hearing seeking dramastically increased wages. This memo was
provided to District management only after Mr. Carter was
confronted with a copy of it on December 4. It was some time
subsequent to this that he contacted the EPA... (P15A). On July
28, 1992, the same newpaper published Carter's reply (P15B).
On July 15, 1992 Martin informed Carter in
writing that since he made serious charges of harassment and
retaliation by ED2, an independent investigator, not associated
with ED2, would be appointed to verify these charges (D20). The
investigation was conducted by Paul Ehler, a certified senior
human resources specialist (T166). At the hearing Ehler stated he
has extensive experience in his field, including serving 6 years
(now Chairman) on the City of Scottsdale Personnel Commission to
hear and resolve employees' grievances (T166). Ehler stated that
in accepting his assignment, he wan given no restrictions as to
how to conduct his investigation and who to interview (T169-170).
Ehler stated that he interviewed some 14 employees, including
Carter and Martin, but before the interviews he prepared a set of
questions to elicit objective answers from the interviews. Ehler
was questioned by Carter's counsel regarding his qualifications,
experience and objectivity. Furthermore, Ehler's interview notes
were offered to Carter's counsel for private viewing. Based on
his investigation, Ehler found no harassment or retaliation by
ED2 as result of Carter's contact with EPA. Instead, Ahler found
Carter's complaint was a "pretext" for his wage demand.
In support of his finding, Ehler described with specificity three
financial options Carter proposed to settle his charges"
"Option one is reinstate him at the journeyman rate, give
him a four-year employment contract, compensation for back wages
at journeyman rate to reduce the impact of taxes on his
settlement. Or option number two, accept termination, waive
litigation rights in exchange for four year's worth of pay at the
Journeyman rate for damage. to his foot.... And option three
[Page 9]
is continue at his current wage and he would pursue it in
court... (T203-204). Based on Carter's proposal to settle, Ehler
stated, Wit appeared to me that it was being manipulated for
personal gain in that situation and that EPA would fall out of
the picture in a hurry if the financial amount of payment was
there. (T204). Ehler's report dated July 29, 1992 is a part of
the record (D23).
On July 29, 1992 Carter was hand delivered a
memo written by Martin placing him on paid administrative leave
from July 29 through July 31, 1992. Martin gave three reasons for
taking the action: First, Carter failed in his environmental
compliance function by not immediately reporting the buried
capacitors on ED2 property. Carter distributed false information
regarding his role in addressing ED2 environmental issues.
Second, Carter distributed false information regarding how ED2 is
addressing all the environmental compliance issues. Three,
Carters behavior at the work place was increasingly disruptive to
other employees, hampering ED2's ability to conduct itself
business effectively (P16). On August 3, 1992 Martin terminated
Carter's employment in writing (P17).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In Carter's brief, he begins with the
allegation that on July 16, 1991 he discussed the possibility of
buried capacitors on ED2 property with Martin, who allegedly
expressed utter disregard to this potential environmental hazard.
Carter's next alleges that he prepared and delivered a memo dated
July 17, 1991 to Martin to "confirm" Martin's knowledge
of this potential hazard. Carter next alleges that since the
management was still Inattentive to this hazard, he wrote a memo
dated November 18, 1991 to Martin and Rotz stating the management
new about the potential hazard and was negligent in not taken any
proper action to address this problem. Carter next alleges that
after discovery of the November 18, 1991 memo, Martin and Rotz
suddenly became worried about an EPA inspection and their
liability for environmental compliance violations. According to
Carter, this worry was manifested in Martin's February 4, 1992
memo (P10) in which Martin suspected Carter's November 18, 1991
memo was meant for EPA, and Martin's statement to the Department
of Labor's investigator, stating, around December 9, Jim Rotz was
going through the computer file looking for the EPA because he
was sure the EPA would be coming out.. (D1). According to Carter,
the sudden implementation of a formal environmental compliance
program few days after discovery of the November 18, 1991 memo
was further indication of ED2's worry about potential violations
after Carter contacted the EPA.
Finally, Carter alleges that because of
his contact with EPA he was harassed and retaliated in the
following actions taken by ED2s First, on December 4, 1991 he was
removed from environmental compliance function and reassigned to
[Page 10]
a lesser job without his consent. Carter alleges his removal was
unjustified because his work history up to that point was good.
Two, on December 9, 1991 he was reprimanded for insubordination
when he refused to release passwords to Rotz, his supervisor, to
the company-owned computer. Three, during his 16-week leave of
absence caused by a work-related injury, he was given a deadline
to return to work contrary to medical advice, end furthermore
when he returned to work he was given work not within hin Job
description. Five, on July 8, 1992 his hourly wage was
unjustifiably reduced. Finally, on July 29, 1992 he was
placed on administrative leave and on August 3, 1992 he was
terminated without given specific reasons for the termination.
Contrary to Carter's allegation, Martin denied
having a discussion with Carter on July 16, 1991 regarding
possible buried capacitors on ED2 property and ever seeing or
reading Carter's alleged memo dated July 17, 1991. Martin stated
that he first learned about the possibility of buried capacitors
was from reading Carter's November 18, 1991 memo. Martin further
stated that if indeed there were buried capacitors on the
property, this would be a "catatrophe" and he surely
would have remembered Carter's alleged memo. While Carter
asserted Rotz knew about the the possibility of buried capacitors
all along, Rotz denied such knowledge before reading Carter's
November 18, 1991 memo.
Since the existence of the alleged July 17,
1991 memo is a critical question, I must determine Cater's
credibility versus Martin's and Rotz's crebility. I note, before
the alleged memo, Carter delivered several memoranda on
environmental compliance matters to Martin and each time Martin
responded positively authorizing Carter to take action. Also,
after the alleged memo Carter delivered the August 7, 1991 memo
on environmental compliance and again Martin responded positively
with his handwritten remark: "Walter, please keep me advised
on the status of this." Since Martin expressed positive
interest on compliance matters before and after the alleged memo,
it is unlikely that he would have responded negatively on the
subject of possible buried capacitors if this subject was brought
up by Carter on July 16, 1991. In my view, Carter's credibiity is
suspect since his counsel initially offered into evidence the
August 7, 1991 memo without Martinis handwritten response and
only after voir dair examination did Carter admit the complete
August 7, 1991 memo to include Martin's handwritten response.
This episode leads me to believe Carter deliberately gave his
counsel the incomplete memo to distort facts. At the hearing
Carter asserted that almost immediately after taking over the
environmental compliance function he was used as a
"scapegoat" (T347). Carter gave no specifics to support
his allegation and I find none. Also, at the hearing Ehler
described three specific financial options Carter proposed to
settle his charges against ED2. After Ehler left the hearing,
Carter on redirect examination asserted that it was Ehler who
[Page 11]
made the proposal (T343). The assertion is incredible.
Rotz stated that before his removal Carter was
responsbile for keeping records of contaminated capacitors
collected and removed from ED2 property and that after his
removal an unsuccessful effort was made to find these records.
Rotz stated that finally these records were found in a vault
(Rotz deposition at 72-73). Martin further stated that after
discovery of the November 18, 1991 memo he interviewed ED2
employees and found Carter may have learned about the buried
capacitors as early as 1990 and no later than May of 1991. Martin
suspected Carter "fabricated" the alleged July 17, 1991
memo to protect himself (Martin deposition at 22-23). The facts
leads me to believe that Carter was a trusted employee before the
discovery of the November 18, 1991 memo and after the discovery
Martin and Rotz believed Carter could no longer be trusted. From
this distrust, it is understandable why only few days after the
discovery ED2 started a comprehensive compliance program.
From October 1991 through July 1992 Carter made
remarks to his fellow employees that he wanted to bug the Board
of Directors room, that he wanted to use explosive to correct his
problem with the Board of Directors, that he wanted to be fired
and use his lawsuit against ED2 as his "lottery, that he
wrote a memo everday Just to irritate the management so he could
be fired. In a written memo to Martin, Carter also suggested
there was debauchery between Martin and Linda Miller. Carter's
remarks clearly are the expressions of a disgruntled employee and
not the expressions of a whistle blower being harassed and
retaliated for his contact with EPA. I note, in the July 15, 1992
newspaper article Carter basically reported the same allegations
as in this case, which I find to be untrue. The fact that Carter
brought a handgun to work further supports a conclusion that
Carter's words and deeds were intended to intimidate and disrupt
ED2's work force. Under these circusmtances, I can readily
understand why the employees' morale improved during Carter's 16-week absence and their morale deteriorated after his return to
work. Carter relied on the fact that he had a good work record up
to December 4, 1991 in support his allegation that ED2's
subsequent actions were in retaliation for his contact with EPA.
However, I note, on December 4, 1991 the Board of Directors
rejected Carters wage demand and before the rejection Carter had
no reason to be disruptive. In Carter's brief, Martin is faulted
for not giving specific reasons for his termination. However, the
facts made it abundantly clear that Carter wanted a confrontation
so he could
be fired and collect his "lottery." In my view,
Martin had every reason to avoid the trap. For Carter to prevail
in this case, ED2's actions must be shown in retaliation of
Carter's contact with EPA. I find no such showing has been made.
Instead, I find the actions taken by ED2 were in response to
Carter's disruptive behavior after he lost his wage demand.
[Page 12]
RECOMMENDED DECISION
Carter's complaint is hereby dismissed.
VICTOR J. CHAO
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
[ENDNOTES]
1 15 U.S.C. §
2622 states in part, "no employer may discharge any employee
or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to
the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment because the employee. . . .has. . . .(l) commenced or
is about to commence proceeding under this Act..."