Opinion ID: 2644933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: OSHA Complaints

Text: In June, July and September 2008, Onysko filed complaints with OSHA in which he alleged that DEQ had retaliated against him as a “whistleblower.” -5- Onysko’s June 1 complaint concerned his demotion, which occurred more than 200 days earlier on October 25, 2007. Onysko’s second complaint, filed on July 8, 2008, stemmed from a July 3 performance review of Onysko’s four-month tenure as engineering section manager in which he received ratings of “successful” in six categories and “unsuccessful” in the seventh. With regard to the unsuccessful category, Bousfield wrote: [Onysko] views DEQ’s Operating Principles . . . as an impediment to enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act and Rules. [Onysko] demonstrates an unwillingness to see that one can achieve compliance with Rules by implementing [Operating Principles]. [He] is also unwilling to accept management’s directions regarding [the Operating Principles]. This disconnect between [the Operating Principles] and Rule compliance overshadowed [Onysko’s] good work and showed he was not ready for leadership within DDW. Id. at 2860. Onysko’s third and final OSHA complaint was filed on September 9, 2008. This complaint had its origins in a warning letter Onysko received on August 11 as a result of having sent an inappropriate email to a co-worker in July. In the email, Onysko cautioned a fellow employee about taking advice from a particular supervisor and also accused that supervisor of lodging a secret complaint about Onysko that resulted in the demotion. OSHA dismissed the complaints.