Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01345/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01345-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RONALD MASTERS, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appellant, 

-vsDANIEL INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, 

Appellee. 

NO. 88-1345 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas 

(D.C. 86-4268-R) 

,

i ... j'_ }. •' ~-. i \ • - A., ,s~I 

FEB r 'OGQ - u !. • .:J 

Dan L. Wul z, Bryan, Lykins, · Hej tmanek & Wul z, Topeka Kansas, 

Attorneys for Appellant 

Leonard J. Spooner of Thompson, Mann and Hutson, Greenville, SC, 

Lizabeth Lee Walther, Thompson, Mann and Hutson, Washington, D. C. 

and Arthur E. Palmer of Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, 

Topeka, Kansas, attorneys for Appellee 

Before McKAY and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL, District 

Judge.* 

*Honorable David L. Russell, United States District Judge for the 

Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-1345 Document: 010110155318 Date Filed: 02/06/1990 Page: 1 
( 

The appellant Ron .Masters brought this action for retaliatory 

discharg~ in the district court alleging that his former employer 

appellee Daniel International Corporation ("Daniel") terminated him \ 

for having reported safety related concerns to the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). 

This appeal is from a decision of the district court 

dismissing Masters' claim on the basis that the claim was preempted 

by Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act 42 U.S.C. § 5851. 

The facts as alleged by Masters are that on February 2, 1984 

he notified the NRC of his safety related concerns about work he 

was doing at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Kansas. 

Ultimately the NRC's investigation vindicated Masters complaint. 

In the meantime Masters was terminated by Daniel allegedly for 

being a whistleblower. 

Masters did not file a claim with the Department of Labor 

within thirty days of his termination as required by 42 U. s. c. 

§ 5851(b) (1); rather, he later brought this action for retaliatory 

discharge. 

Whether a state law claim for retaliatory discharge in 

response to an employee making safety related complaints to the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission is preempted by 42 U.S.C. § 5851 is 

a matter of first impression in this cir9uit. Other circuits which 

have ruled on this issue have reached differing conclusions. 

In English v. General Electric Co., 871 F.2d 22 (4th Cir. 

1989) the Court fou_nd that the Energy Reorganization Act was 

intended by Congress to be the exclusive remedy for employees who 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1345 Document: 010110155318 Date Filed: 02/06/1990 Page: 2 
allege discrimination resulting from safety complaints and that 

state law claims were thus preempted. In Snow v. Bechtel 

Construction, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 1514 (C.D. of Calif. 1986) that 

court also concluded that state law claims were preempted, but 

based on the premise that primarily safety concerns were being 

addressed by the Energy Reorganization Act and that in accord with 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation 

& Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190, 212, 103 s.ct. 1713, 1726, 

75 L.Ed.2d 752, 770 (1983), "the Federal Government has occupied 

the entire field of nuclear safety concerns, except the limited 

power expressly ceded to the states." In Snow the Court drew a 

corollary between the "whistleblower" provision of§ 5851 and the 

Mine Safety and Health Act, 30 u.s.c. § 820, which are quite 

similar. In Olguin v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Company, 740 F.2d 

14 68 ( 9th Cir. 1984) that court found that the "whistleblower" 

provision of the Mine Safety and Health Act was an exclusive remedy 

and preempted state action. Also see Chrisman v. Philips 

Industries, Inc., 751 P.2d 140 (Kan. 1988). 

To the contrary in Norris v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 

881 F.2d 1144 (1st Cir. 1989) the court concluded that the Energy 

Reorganization Act did not preempt state law claims. In accord 

with this position also see Gaballah v. Pacific Gas and Electric 

Co., 711 F. Supp. 988 (N.D. Cal. 1989); Stokes v. Bechtel North 

American Power Corp., 614 F. Supp. 732 (N.D. Cal. 1985); Wheeler 

v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 485 N.E.2d 372 (1985 Ill). 

After review of the cited cases and the opinion of the 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1345 Document: 010110155318 Date Filed: 02/06/1990 Page: 3 
District Court the Court concludes that Section 210 of the Energy 

Reorganization Act, 42 u.s.c. § 5851 preempts any state law claim 

for wrongful termination for reporting safety violations under the 

Act. 

The Court .therefore AFFIRMS the district court's order 

dismissing the complaint. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED BY THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1345 Document: 010110155318 Date Filed: 02/06/1990 Page: 4