Howard v. Quadrex Energy Services, 91-ERA-38 (Sec'y Dec. 10, 1991)

May 9, 2009

DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection

USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Howard v. Quadrex Energy Services, 91-ERA-38 (Sec'y Dec. 10, 1991)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

SECRETARY OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.

DATE: December 10, 1991
CASE NO. 91-ERA-38

IN THE MATTER OF

G. RICHARD HOWARD,
COMPLAINANT,

QUADREX ENERGY SERVICES,
RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

Before me for review is the Recommended Decision (R.D.) 01 the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), issued on June 18, 1991, in this case arising under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5951 (1988). The ALJ recommended dismissal of the complaint, finding that complainant failed to establish an essential element of a prima facie case of blacklisting, i.e. that Respondent was aware of Complainant's protected conduct.¹ Neither party filed a brief before the Secretary.

Based on a review of the record, I adopt and append the ALJ's decision dismissing the complaint. The record fully

[Page 2]

supports the ALJ's factual findings and legal conclusions on the issue of failure to establish the requisite elements of a prima facie case of blacklisting. See generally Dartey v. Zack Company of Chicago, Case No. 82-ERA-2, Sec. Dec. and Final Order, April 25, 1983, slip op. at 5-9. Moreover, the ALJ's analysis is consistent with prior decisions of the Secretary on blacklisting. See generally Howard v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No. 90-ERA-24, Sec. Final Dec. and Order of Dismissal, July 3, 1991, slip op. at 3-6; Doyle v. Bartlett Nuclear Services, Case No. 89-ERA-18, Sec. Dec. and Order of Dismissal, May 22, 1990, slip op. at 4-5. As this record is devoid of evidence, other than Complainant's speculation, that Respondent was aware of Complainant's protected conduct in his former employment with the Tennessee Valley Authority, I dismiss the complaint.

SO ORDERED.

LYNN MARTIN
Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.

[ENDNOTES]

¹ A separate complaint alleging unlawful termination and blacklisting against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), has been dismissed as untimely with respect to the unlawful discharge allegation and for failure to allege a prima facie case of blacklisting. G. Richard Howard v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No. 90-ERA-24, Sec. Final Dec. and Order of Dismissal, July 3, 1991. To date, Complainant has filed three separate complaints based on the events subsequent to his discharge from employment with the TVA in July 1987. This decision deals only with the complaint filed against Quadrex Energy services.