U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Date: March 3, 1988
Case No. 88-ERA-0008
In the matter of
W. ALLEN YOUNG
Claimant
v.
CBI SERVICES, INC.
Employer
RECOMMENDED ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
42 U.S.C. 5851 (1982)
This is an action under the "whistleblower" provisions of the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851
(1982) alleging discrimination as defined and prohibited by that
statute. After complaint, on November 25, 1987 the Wage and Hour
Division of the U. S. Department of Labor issued a finding adverse to
the interests of the respondent. CBI Services, Inc., the respondent,
promptly filed a request for hearing before an administrative law judge.
After assignment to me, the matter was scheduled for hearing in
Camden, N.J. on January 25, 1988. Although all parties were notified,
complainant failed to appear. Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss
the complaint, with prejudice, for Claimant's failure to appear. A
Show Cause order was issued by me under the provision of 20 C.F.R.
24.5(e)(4)(B)(ii) requiring Claimant to show cause within 30 days why
his complaint should not be dismissed. Shortly thereafter, a letter
appearance, mailed January 21, 1985, was received, noting the
appearance of counsel and requesting a postponement of hearing.
[Page 2]
The letter from Claimant's counsel indicated that he thought the
hearing was scheduled for January 28, and it noted the possibility of a
motion for consolidation of this case with others pending at some
unspecified future time. Counsel for Claimant was then notified by me
that his untimely appearance letter would not constitute "good cause"
within the contemplation of the Show Cause Order.
Counsel for the Claimant filed a response to the Show Cause Order
on February 19, 1988. Most of that pleading is devoted to a recitation
of the facts and status of three other pending "whistleblower" cases
under the same act against Philadelphia Electric Company and other
sub-contractors. As concerns this case, though, and the failure to
appear, counsel says only that neither he nor complainant "attended the
hearing because of an error as to the date of the hearing. *** Either
complainant gave his counsel the incorrect date, or counsel
misunderstood the date, and that error resulted in the failure of
either complainant or counsel to appear at the hearing."