Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/1767657/Department-of-Labor-02-106
Timestamp: 2019-08-19 18:11:49
Document Index: 408277733

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9610', '§ 6901', '§ 18', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 6971', '§ 9610', '§ 5', '§ 24', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18']

Department of Labor: 02 106 | Summary Judgment | Administrative Law Judge
Department of Labor: 02 106
saveSave Department of Labor: 02 106 For Later
Monsour et al v. Menu Maker Foods Inc - Document No. 87
American Savings & Loan Association of Florida v. Pembroke Lakes Regional Center Associates, Ltd., C.F. Pembroke Associates, 908 F.2d 885, 11th Cir. (1990)
Nagy v. Baltimore Life Ins, 4th Cir. (2000)
Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254, 10th Cir. (2002)
Joyce Bickerstaff v. Vassar College, 196 F.3d 435, 2d Cir. (1999)
fastr092
fastr092 (NHSCT, 2003)
BARDEN CANNAMELA, ARB CASE NO. 02-106
COMPLAINANT, ALJ CASE NO. 2002-SWD-2
v. DATE: September 30, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,
Curtis G. Shoemaker, Esq., Watkinsville, Georgia
Annette M. Cowart, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Bryan K. Webb, Esq., Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Dennis R. Dunn, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Thurbert
E. Baker, Esq., Attorney General, Atlanta, Georgia
Barden Cannamela claimed that his employer, Respondent Environmental Protection
Division of the State of Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources, violated the employee
protection provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 9610-9675 (West 1995) and the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 6901-6992 (West 1995). The Respondent, a political
subdivision of the State of Georgia, filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that it was immune from
prosecution by Cannamela, a private citizen, under U.S CONST. amend. XI.1 By Recommended
Decision and Order dated July 26, 2002 (R. D. & O.), an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
granted the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. For reasons stated below, we affirm.
The Complainant was an employee of the State of Georgia’s Department of Natural
Resources. He raised concerns with his employer regarding alleged waste and misuse of funds
under the Georgia Scrap Tire Program and the Solid Waste Trust Fund. Cannamela claimed that
his employer involuntarily transferred him, denied him pay raises and committed other acts of
harassment and discrimination as a result of his allegations.
On October 3, 2001, Cannamela filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor under the
employee protection provisions of the CERCLA and the SWDA. In accordance with normal
procedures, Cannamela’s complaint was forwarded to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) for investigation. In a report dated April 5, 2002, OSHA found that
Cannamela had not engaged in protected activity because the Georgia Scrap Tire Program and
the Solid Waste Trust Fund were State programs not mandated nor regulated by the implicated
federal statutes. Cannamela requested a formal hearing before a Department of Labor (DOL)
Prior to the hearing, the ALJ conducted a phone conference with the parties to determine
whether the Respondent would be claiming immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. On May
28, 2002, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Federal Maritime Comm’n v.
South Carolina Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002) (sovereign immunity applies to administrative
proceedings). On May 31, 2002, the ALJ issued an Order canceling the scheduled hearing and
directing the parties to file any motions or briefs addressing the impact of the Supreme Court’s
The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.40 (2002) (Motion
for Summary Decision) claiming sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
Cannamela filed a response arguing that the holding in Federal Maritime Comm’n was not
applicable to the instant proceeding because the proceeding was investigative and not
adjudicatory.
U.S CONST. amend. XI provides in part: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by Citizens of another State . . ..”
For facts that do not appear in the ALJ’s R. D. & O. and the briefs of the parties, we rely on
OSHA’s April 5, 2002 decision letter and Cannamela’s October 3, 2001 complaint, which are in the
record, and construe those facts in the light most favorable to Cannamela as the non-moving party.
The ALJ found that Cannamela was a private citizen, that the Respondent, by filing its
Motion for Summary Decision, had clearly not consented to being sued and that the Department
of Labor had not elected to prosecute the matter. R. D. & O. at 2. In light of these findings and
the fact that the formal hearing process was adjudicatory, the ALJ recommended dismissing
Cannamela’s complaint with prejudice on the ground of sovereign immunity. R. D. & O. at 3.
The Complainant then filed a timely appeal with this Board.
We consider whether the ALJ correctly dismissed the Complainant’s private federal
claims against the Respondent State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources based upon
The Administrative Review Board has jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s recommended
decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 24.8 (2002) and Secretary’s Order No. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg.
64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002) (delegating to the Board the Secretary’s authority to review cases under
the statutes listed in 29 C.F.R. § 24.1(a), including, inter alia, 42 U.S.C.A. § 6971 and 42
U.S.C.A. § 9610, the whistleblower protection provisions of the SWDA and the CERCLA).
The Board reviews an ALJ’s recommended grant of summary decision de novo, i.e., the
same standard that the ALJ applies in initially evaluating a motion for summary judgment
governs our review. Honardoost v. Peco Energy Co., ARB No. 01-030, ALJ 00-ERA-36, slip
op. at 4 (ARB March 25, 2003). Accordingly, the Board will affirm an ALJ’s recommendation
that summary decision be granted if, upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, we conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the ALJ correctly applied the relevant law.
1. Sovereign immunity bars Cannamela’s complaint.
We hold that state sovereign immunity bars the adjudication of the Complainant’s federal
environmental whistleblower complaint before a DOL ALJ.
States enjoy sovereign immunity from prosecution in federal courts under the Eleventh
Amendment as well as the Constitution’s structure, history and the general body of Supreme
Court case law. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999). This immunity from prosecution
extends to state-court suits as well. Id. at 733. Congress lacks the power to abrogate the states’
sovereign immunity under Article I of the Constitution. Seminole Tribes of Fla. v. Florida, 517
U.S. 44 (1996). However, Congress may abrogate such immunity if it acts pursuant to a valid
exercise of its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and makes its intention to abrogate
unmistakably clear in the language of the statute. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456
States may also voluntarily waive their immunity. For example, where Congress
unambiguously conditions waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity upon the receipt of federal
funds, and a state continues to receive such funds, the state has waived its immunity. Garrett v.
University of Ala., Nos. 02-16078, 02-16186, 02-16408, 02-16455, 2003 WL 22097772 *3 (11th
Cir. Sept. 11, 2003). See also C & L Enter., Inc. v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Indian Tribe of
Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (2001) (by entering into a contract with binding arbitration clause Indian
tribe waived its sovereign immunity).
Recently, the Supreme Court has clarified that states also enjoy sovereign immunity in
administrative proceedings that sufficiently resemble civil litigation in federal courts. Compare
Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002) (similarities
between FMC’s proceedings and federal civil litigation overwhelming) with Tennessee v. United
States Dep’t of Transp., 326 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2003) (proceeding was informal rule-making
rather than adjudication and therefore did not violate amend. XI). See also Rhode Island Dep’t
of Envtl. Mgmt. v. U.S., 304 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2002) (state’s immunity from suit extends to
adversarial administrative proceedings prosecuted against state by private party); Connecticut
Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. OSHA, 138 F. Supp. 2d 285, 296-97 (D. Conn. 2001) (filing with OSHA
of a whistleblower complaint by a private party against a state agency violated that state’s
sovereign immunity); Florida v. United States, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Fla. 2001)
(administrative hearing under CERCLA and SWDA whistleblower provisions, among others,
violated state’s sovereign immunity); Ohio Envtl. Prot. Agency v. United States Dep’t of Labor,
121 F. Supp. 2d. 1155 (S.D. Ohio 2000) (CERCLA and SWDA whistleblower complaint
proceedings before ALJ and Administrative Review Board violated state’s sovereign immunity).
In their pleadings before this Board, the parties reiterate the arguments in their briefs
before the ALJ.
Cannamela argues that the Supreme Court’s holding in Federal Maritime Comm’n. is
relevant solely for administrative adjudications. He claims that the instant case is not an
adjudication but is an investigation because, under the scheme laid out under the CERCLA and
SWDA and the implementing regulations, “[t]he Administrative Law Judge is simply performing
an investigative function which results in a report to the Secretary of Labor.” Complainant’s
Brief at 1-2. Cannamela claims that “the ALJ does not make the finding of whether or not a
violation has occurred nor does he order relief of any sort. Those decisions are made by the
Secretary of Labor in her executive capacity.” Id. at 2. Cannamela asserts that it is only after the
Secretary of Labor makes her findings of fact and orders action that judicial review, which
involves considerations of sovereign immunity, enters the statutory scheme. Id.
The Respondent disputes Canamella’s statutory interpretations, claiming they are “overly
literal and disregard the authority of the Secretary of Labor, as an arm of the Executive branch of
the federal government, to delegate statutory authority within the Department, e.g., to its ALJs.”
Brief of Respondent at 2-3. The Respondent notes that both the CERCLA and the SWDA
specify that the term “Secretary” shall mean the Secretary of Labor or his or her designee. Id. at
3. The Respondent argues that these designees, acting throughout the investigation and
adjudication of whistleblower complaints under the procedures set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 24,
perform adjudications within the meaning of the Supreme Court’s holding in Federal Maritime
Comm’n. Id.
The earlier-cited principles and cases make it clear that the ALJ hearing on the
Complainant’s whistleblower complaint is adjudicatory, not investigative. Cannamela cites no
contradictory case law. We therefore reject Cannamela’s contention that the Respondent is not
protected by sovereign immunity. 3
2. Summary decision is appropriate.
Because the Complainant, as non-moving party, failed to raise any disputed issues of
material fact, the Respondent is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.
The Rules for Practice and Procedure for Administrative Law Judges, 29 C.F.R. § 18.40,
permit an ALJ to enter a summary decision for either party where “there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and . . . a party is entitled to summary decision.” Id. Moreover, “[w]hen a
motion for summary decision is made and supported as provided in [§ 18.40] a party opposing
the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of such pleading. Such response
must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for the hearing.” 29
C.F.R. § 18.40(c). In deciding a motion for summary decision, we view the factual evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Johnsen v. Houston Nana, Inc., JV, ALJ No.
99-TSC-4, ARB No. 00-064, slip op. at 4 (ARB Feb. 10, 2003) (“[I]n ruling on a motion for
summary decision we . . . do not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matters
asserted. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to, and drawing all inferences in favor
of, the non-moving party, we must determine the existence of any genuine issues of material
fact.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); Stauffer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ALJ
No. 99-STA-21, ARB No. 99-107 (ARB Nov. 30, 1999).
However, if the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to his case, and on which he will bear the burden of proof at
trial,” there is no genuine issue of material fact and the proponent is entitled to summary
decision. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2550 (1986). See
Webb v. Carolina Power & Light Co., Case No. 93-ERA-42, slip op. at 5-6 (Sec’y July 4, 1995).
In the present case the ALJ found: “it is not disputed that the Complainant in this case is
At the conclusion of its investigation, OSHA rejected Cannamela’s complaint. The DOL has
declined to participate further in Cannamela’s case.
a private citizen and that the Respondent is an agency of the State of Georgia. Further, by filing
its motion to dismiss, the State of Georgia has clearly indicated that it does not consent to being
sued in this forum.” R. D. & O. at 2. In deciding this case on a Motion for Summary Decision,
the ALJ assumed without evidence in the record that the State of Georgia’s Department of
Natural Resources had not previously voluntarily waived its sovereign immunity. Nevertheless,
the burden fell upon Cannamela to establish through affidavits or otherwise a genuine issue of
material fact. In his response, the Complainant never suggested that sovereign immunity had
been voluntarily waived. In the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, entry of judgment
for the State via summary decision was proper.
The Respondent’s sovereign immunity bars Cannamela, as a private citizen, from
prosecuting his whistleblower complaint. We DISMISS Cannamela’s complaint.
USDOL/OALJ REPORTER PAGE 6
Dokumente ähnlich wie Department of Labor: 02 106
Allstate Insurance Company v. Kenneth D. Steinemer, James A. Pattison, 723 F.2d 873, 11th Cir. (1984)
Advanced Flexible Circuits v. GE Sensing & Inspection, 1st Cir. (2015)
Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 4th Cir. (2009)
Ibay, Incorporated v. United States, 4th Cir. (1997)
24. Evangelista 148864
Mehr von Department of Labor
3 Years Syllabus Book
vgkmr88
US Department of Justice Official Release - 02501-07 nsd 512
Kes PP v Abdul Halim Abdul Samat [2014] 4 CLJ 12
Nabilah Nasuha Zolkaflee
Stat Con Topic 8
Boie-Takeda v De La Serna
negotiable instruments best.pdf
Hostway Corporation v. IAC Search & Media, Inc. - Document No. 18
ASEGE Vs OPPORTUNITY BANK (U) LIMITED & MAAD ADVERTISING.docx
Raman Venmarathoor
York County court Sept. 9
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CYBER-CRIME LAWS
John Doe University of Texas at Austin Lawsuit 080717