For the Complainant:
Syed M.A. Hasan, pro se,
Madison, Alabama
For the Respondent: Harry Sangerman, P.C., McDermott, Will & Emory, Chicago, Illinois
ORDER OF REMAND
BACKGROUND
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act ("ERA"), which prohibit an employer from discriminating against or otherwise taking unfavorable personnel action against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee engaged in protected whistleblowing activity. 42 U.S.C.A. §5851 (West 1995). This is the second case that Complainant Syed Hasan has filed against Respondent and one of many cases that he has filed against other companies for failing to hire, retain, or rehire him.2[Page 2]
1 This appeal has been assigned to a panel of two Board members, as authorized by Secretary's Order 2-96. 61 Fed. Reg. 19,978 §5 (May 3, 1996).
2Hasan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., ARB Nos. 01-002, 01-003; ALJ Nos. 2000-ERA-8, 2000-ERA-11(ARB Apr. 23, 2001); Hasan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., ARB No. 01-005, ALJ No. 2000-ERA-13 (ARB Apr. 23, 2001); Hasan v. Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., ARB No. 00-080, ALJ No. 2000-ERA-6 (ARB Jan. 30, 2001); Hasan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., ARB No. 00-028; ALJ No. 2000-ERA-1, (ARB Dec. 29, 2000); Hasan v. Intergraph Corp., ARB No. 97-016; ALJ No. 96-ERA-17, (ARB Aug. 6, 1997); Hasan v. Bechtel Power Corp., No. 94-ERA-21 (Sec'y Mar. 16, 1995); Hasan v. Bechtel Power Corp., No. 93-ERA-40 (Sec'y Feb. 13, 1995); Hasan v. System Energy Resources, Inc., No. 89-ERA-36 (Sec'y Sept. 23, 1992); Hasan v. Nuclear Power Services, Inc., No. 86-ERA-24 (Sec'y June 26, 1991); Hasanv. Florida Power & Light Co., ARB No. 01-004, ALJ No. 2000-ERA-12 (ALJ Oct. 5, 2000); Hasan v. Stone & Webster Engineersand Constructors, Inc., ARB No. 01-007, ALJ No. 2000-ERA-10 (ALJ Oct. 5, 2000); Hasan v. Wolfe Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., ARB No. 01-006, ALJ No. 2000-ERA-14 (ALJ Oct. 5, 2000); Hasan v. Sargent & Lundy, No. 96-ERA-27 (ALJ Nov. 4, 1996); Hasan v. Bechtel Power Corp., No. 93-ERA-22 (ALJ Dec. 8, 1994); Hasan v. Nuclear Power Services Inc., No. 86-ERA-36 (ALJ July 27, 1989).
3 OSHA is the agency within the Department of Labor charged with investigating ERA whistleblower complaints. See 29 C.F.R. §§24.4, 24.5 (2000).
4 Although the ALJ is required to construe a pro se complainant's pleadings liberally, he is not obligated to develop arguments on behalf of the complainant. See Rice v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 38 F.3d 909, 917-18 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1111 (1995) (suggesting that courts need not develop arguments on behalf of litigants who have not done so); TJ's South, Inc. v. Town of Lowell, 895 F.Supp. 1124 (N.D. Ind. 1995).
5 Hasan has raised a number of other arguments in this case. The Board finds those arguments without merit and do not warrant a separate discussion in this Order.