Opinion ID: 2644933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The SDWA

Text: The SDWA prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against an employee because of his involvement in activities concerning the administration -6- or enforcement of drinking water regulations. § 300j-9(i)(1)(A-C); 29 C.F.R. § 24.102(a)-(b). “Any employee who believes that he has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of [the SDWA] may, within 30 days after such violation occurs, file . . . a complaint.” § 300j-9(i)(2)(A). See also 29 C.F.R. § 24.103(d)(1). To prevail on his “whistleblower” claim Onysko was required, among other things, to prove causation. The element of causation required Onysko to “demonstrate[] by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected activity caused or was a motivating factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint.” 29 C.F.R. § 24.109(b)(2). Only if Onysko met his burden to prove causation and the other elements of his claim was DEQ required to come forward with evidence “that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the protected activity.” Id. A motivating factor is the same as a substantial factor. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977); see also Hulen v. Yates, 322 F.3d 1229, 1237 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that an employee is required “to demonstrate that [engaging in the protected activity] was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action.”).