7/30/2019 DOLAdminRevBoardCaseNo02Seq075
1/3
Administrativeleview oard200Constitutionvenue, .W.Washington,.C.
20210
In theNlatterofiMARK J. KELLY,
COMPLAINANT,v.
LAMBDA RESEARCH,IIC.,
ARB CASENO. 02.075ALJ CASENO. 2OOO-ERA.35DATE: MAR I 2oo.4
RESPONDENT;
BEFORE: THE ADMII{ISTRATTVEREVIEW BOARDAppearances:For the
Conqlainant:
Mark J. Kelly,pro se,Dillsboro,InclianaFor the Respgndent:
Robert A. Dimling, Esq.,MekeshaH. Montgomery, Esq.Frost Brown
To;dd,LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio
FINAL DECISIONAND ORDERMarkJ. Keliy filed a complaint gainst
ambdaResearch,nc .(Lambda),nderthe_employeerotection rovisions f
theEnergyReorganizationct (ERA or Act), 42!.S C e $ 5851 West1995)r
ileging,nteralii. thatLambda onstructivelyerminatedhis employmentn
retaliationor hishaving aised afety oncerns.A
DepartmentfLaborAdministrativeaw Judge ALJ) ssuida
Recommendedecision ndOrder R.D .q9 ) concludinghatKelly had ailedo
establishhatLambdaetaliatedgainst im,andKellyappealed.
t Th. statuteprovides, n pertinentpart, that "[n]o employermay
discharge nyemployee r otherwise iscriminate gainst ny employeewrth
r.rpl.t to his compeniation,terms, onditions, rprivileges f
employmentecauseheemployee . . [notifies coveredemployer boutan
alleged iolation f theERA or theAtomicF.nergy ctlane; (42U.S.C.$
29]l et seq. 2000).;,efuseso engagen apracticemadeunlawlulby theERA
orAEA,testifiesegarding rovisions r proposed .ouisions f the ERA or
AEA. or commences.causeso becommencedr testifies, ssistsr
participatesn a proceedingnder heERA orAEA]."
7/30/2019 DOLAdminRevBoardCaseNo02Seq075
2/3
2FACTS
LambdaemployedMark Kelly asa lab technician eginningn
June199gandasa' labsupervisoreginningn December 998.At al l
relevanl imei,Lambda, researchlaboratory specializing n x-ray
diffracrion, provided materials esting services ogovernmentai nd
ndustrialclients. PaulPrevey oundedLambda n i99-7and was
itsDirectorof Research,resident,andchairmanofthe Board.Whenever
problemoccured ith the esting f a cl ient 'smaterials,ambda
abemployees repared QualityAssurance eport QAR), also eferredo asa
eA incidentreport' The QAR was an internaldocument ep t
permanentlyn Lambda's iles, andwhile it wasno t presentedo clients,
utsidepart'ies ould review t duringany audit ofthe
company'sacilities. The QAR identifiedhe natureandcause f the
estinsnroblemandcontained recommendedoiution.On July 16,1999,Keliy
prepared QAR addressingproblemwith the esting fzirconium tubes fo r
T-ambda's lient, GE Nuclear. GE Nuciear had alreadybeeninformed.of
he testingproblemandhadbeensatisf ied ith Lambda's etestingof
hematerials. In the QAR, however,Kelly had recommendedha t GE
Nuclearbe furthernotified hat past esults rom Lambda's
estsmayhavebeendistorted, nd hatLambda'sproceduresor handling hese
ypesof samples e modified. Kelly submittedheQAR toPaulPrevey or
approval ndsignature.Prevey eturned his QAR to Kelly in August
i999. Prevey nstructed elly toomit the noted ecommendationsecause e
did not r,vantheprocedures hanged r theclient furthernotified.
Preveypointedout to Kelly that the recommendationo changethe
procedurewas no t necessary ecausehe testingerror had occurred, ot
from anincorrect. rocedure, ut becausehe proceduren the manualhad
no t been ollowed.Preveyalso old Kelly that the
clientneeded'nourthernotice egarding as t es t resultsbecause, ad
herebeensampleproblems n the past, hey would havebeen aisedwiththe
client at the t ime they happened. Thus,Prevey tta fetty to revise
he eARaccording o these nstruit ioni. But 'Kelly returned he draft
QAR to prevey inSeptember 999without making he changeshatPreveyhad
requested,hat s, withoutremoving he recommendationshat Preveyhad
wantedomitted. After Kelly refused omake he changeso the QAR,
Prevey eprimanded im, instructed im o stop wastinghis time on the
QAR, and told him no t to speak o other ab personnel
oncerningt.Preveyalso old Kelly that, f eitherof his instructions
ere gnored,he would be fired.Kelly resigned n February 5,2000,
lateralleging hat, beiause f this incidentandotheractsof
discrimination, e hadbeenconstructivJydischarged.
JURISDICTION AND STANDAR.DOF REVIEWThe AdministrativeReview
Board (ARB) has authority o review an ALJ'srecommendedecisionn
cases risingunder heERA, See29 C.F.n.S24.g 2000)
Seea/soSecretary'srderNo. 1-2002,67Fed.Reg.64,272 oct. lT,zooz)
(deiegatingheARB authority o reviewcases risingunder he
environmental histleblower tatutes).
