Under consideration here are responses by Complainant and Respondent to my Order to Show Cause, entered November 15, 1985. That order directed the parties to my concern that the matter presented in this proceeding may not be a complaint cognizable under the statute. It is not contested in this proceeding that Respondent here is a covered employer. The statute's implementing regulations provide for an expedited administrative investigation and determination of any employee complaint of relevant discrimination. In this case, the employee filed a formal complaint with the appropriate administrative office, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor, in a letter dated August 23, 1985.
Complaint asserts two discriminatory incidents.
First, he refers to a reorganization being implemented for Respondent's Quality Assurance Department where he has been employed. In Claimant's view, the reorganization effectively demotes him. Complainant avers that this is Respondent's latest act in furtherance of a course of conduct directed to me in retaliation for my protected activities as a quality assurance auditor . . . . Complainant was then temporarily handicapped and he could walk to his workplace from his normal parking lot location only with extreme difficulty. The definition of protected activity is as broad as the definition of prohibited conduct.