U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
525 Vine Street, Suite 900
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Date: November 1, 1990
CASE NO: 89-ERA-16
In the Matter of
DOUGLAS E. BILLINGS
Plaintiff
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Defendant
Appearances:
Douglas E. Billings,
Pro Se
Brent R. Marquand, Esquire
For the Defendant
BEFORE: ROBERT L. HILLYARD
Administrative Law Judge
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
Preliminary Statement
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), 42 U. S.C. section
5851 (1982).
Douglas E. Billings, Plaintiff, filed a complaint on August
18, 1988, alleging that he had been discriminated against by his
employer, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Plaintiff alleges
that he is an employee of TVA, currently in an enforced leave
status and that he has been involved in investigations with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and that TVA has discriminated
against him because of his voicing safety concerns while at Watts
[Page 2]
Bar Nuclear Plant. He alleges, specifically, that within the
past thirty days of filing of his complaint, the TVA has:
1. Deprived him of Health Benefits and Retirement Benefits.
2. Violated his Privacy Act rights.
3. Refused to release information under FOIA.
4. Interferred with OWCP money.
5. Conspired with TVA Credit Union, denying him of Chapter
11 protection.
6. Accused him of criminal activity without cause.
7. Denied promotion to M-5 position.
8. Discriminated against him because of his age.
9. Discriminated against him because of his handicapped
condition.
10. Aggravated a blood pressure condition through
continued harassment and intimidation.
11. Interfered with current employment with the intention
of getting him terminated.
The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor investigated
the complaint and issued a report dated January 6, 1989 in
which it determined:
a) that complaints numbered above 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9,
and 10 occurred more than thirty days prior to the
filing of the Complaint and, therefore, could not be
investigated by Wage and Hour.
b) that the discrimination alleged under #8 above is
not prohibited under employee protection provisions of
the ERA and, therefore, Wage and Hour could not
investigate.
c) that Wage and Hour found no discrimination under
the ERA regarding reduction of OWCP payments (#4); no
documentation provided as to alleged accusation of
criminal activity (#6); and no evidence of interference
with current employment (#11).
The Plaintiff appealed from the January 6, 1989 decision of
the Wage and Hour Division and requested a hearing. The case was
forwarded for hearing to the undersigned Administrative Law
Judge.
[Page 3]
Because I am recommending dismissal of the Plaintiff's
complaint due to his failure to comply with orders of this court
and due to his failure to prosecute his case, I feel that it is
necessary to outline the history of this case in some detail.
Statement of the Case
On August 18, 1988 the Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging
eleven different violations of the ERA. This was investigated by
the Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Divison which issued
its findings on January 6, 1989 finding no violation of the ERA.
A hearing was timely requested and the case forwarded to this
office for hearing.
A Notice of Hearing and Prehearing Order was issued on
February 3, 1989 scheduling a hearing for March 14, 1989 and
requiring prehearing submissions to be filed by both parties. On
February 27, 1989, the Defendant filed a motion to compel the
Plaintiff to appear for deposition and for an order requiring the
Plaintiff to reimburse the TVA in the amount of $476 which was
incurred as a result of Plaintiff's failure to appear on February
22, 1989, for a duly noticed deposition. A telephone conference
was held on February 28, 1989, during which both parties requested
that the hearing scheduled for March 14, 1989 be continued. The
Plaintiff requested a continuance for health reasons and the
Defendant due to conflict in schedule. On March 2, 1989, an
Order was issued cancelling the hearing scheduled for March 14,
1989. Plaintiff was directed to file a medical report by March
3, 1989, giving the status of his health.
On March 3, 1989, the Plaintiff filed a request for a stay
of proceedings for the reason that his health would not allow him
to pursue the case at that time. Plaintiff enclosed copies of
two letters from Dr. Owen Taylor, dated February 23, 1989, giving
two recommendations to Plaintiff regarding medication and giving
a summary of his medical condition. An order was issued on March
23, 1989, staying further proceedings until May 21, 1989.
On May 8, 1989, the Defendant filed a motion for consolidation,
requesting that the instant case be consolidated with
89-ERA-25 because both cases involved much of the same testimony
and other evidence. On June 21, 1989, an Order was issued
consolidating the instant case with 89-ERA-25.1[Page 4]
1This case was consolidated with four
other cases filed by the Plaintiff. On June 21, 1989, an order was issued consolidating
the instant case with 89-ERA-25, a complaint filed by Plaintiff
against TVA on January 23, 1989. On November 21, 1989, an Order
was issued consolidating the instant case with 90-ERA-2, a
complaint filed by Plaintiff against TVA on August 1, 1989. On
December 7, 1989, an Order was issued consolidating the instant
case with 90-ERA-8, a case filed by Plaintiff against TVA, on
October 14, 1989. On February 14, 1990, an Order was issued
consolidating the instant case with 90-ERA-18, a complaint filed
by Plaintiff on June 1, 1989.