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

Heading: Board’s Dissent

Text: Issues three and five, arguing that the ARB majority erred in affirming on lack of causation without addressing adverse action concerning various events, are essentially the same. Onysko urges this court to adopt the rationale of the Board’s -9- dissenting member. Although Onysko did not file a timely OSHA complaint concerning the demotion, he did file a timely complaint about the subsequent performance evaluation. The dissent reasoned that because the evaluation “effectively reached back to [the] demotion for its substance and cause . . . it was error for the ALJ to fail to address causation in connection with the demotion itself – i.e., whether Onysko’s protected activity was a motivating factor in his October 25[], 2007 demotion.” Admin. R. at 3296. Alternatively, the dissent noted that “[a]rguably, [DEQ] ‘tolled’ the statute of limitations by addressing the demotion in the ‘after-the-fact’ July 3[] [e]valuation.” Id. We address the tolling argument first. Setting aside the fact that Onysko does not offer any authority to support this reasoning, the statute of limitations had already run by the time of the performance evaluation; thus, there was nothing to “toll.” Next, Onysko’s argument that the demotion and performance review were effectively a single action is contrary to the law. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002) (“[D]iscrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges.”); see also Almond v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 501, 665 F.3d 1174, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that discrete acts such as demotion, “trigger the statute of limitations when announced to the claimant, and do so whether or not all of their adverse effects or consequences are immediately felt”). As such, Onysko’s third and fifth issues lack merit. - 10 -