He asserts that in retaliation for his alleged protected whistleblowing activities, EPA-OIG subjected him to threats, intimidation, harassment, physical assaults, an involuntary transfer and the withholding of earned overtime pay and travel expenses. While this is more than 30 days after the directed reassignment of Complainant in November 1992, that is not the only violation alleged.
Complainant also asserts that the violations are of an ongoing nature.
Where a discriminatory act is found to be continuous, the timeliness of the complaint is measured from the date of the last discriminatory action, and the cause of action will encompass all preceding discriminatory acts within that continuous course of discriminatory conduct. I deny the Motion for Summary Judgment based on the timeliness because Complainant has alleged violations within 30 days of the filing of the complaint and his assertion that the violations were ongoing present issues of material fact. This argument has been rejected by the Secretary, and I likewise reject it. B. The CAA Does Apply to EPA Employees Relying on the plain language of the statute, EPA argues that the CAA does not apply to EPA employees. This argument was rejected in Marcus when the Secretary held that the CAA and other environmental statutes do apply to EPA employees, and Federal employees in general.