ML20198H107

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Vm English Transcript & Page 3 of Rept 70-1113/82-18 from Original Submittal.Documents Subj to Affidavits of Nondisclosure Signed Earlier.Supporting Documentation Encl
ML20198H107
Person / Time
Site: 07001113
Issue date: 08/24/1984
From: Bradley Jones
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Ratner M
RATNER, M.G.
Shared Package
ML20198H089 List:
References
FOIA-85-461 NUDOCS 8601300169
Download: ML20198H107 (9)
v • d • e


Text

- . . . . .

pa UNITES ETATES

/j %q'o,, 8 OLE AR REGULATURY COMMISSION

[ g CEGION 18

% r 131 M A~llETT A ST R E E T. N.W.

\,...../ AM 2 81984 Mr. Mozart G. Ratner 1900 M St., NW washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Ratner:

Enclosed are 1) an additional copy of Ms. English's transcript and 2) page 3 of Report 70-1113/82-18 that was missing from the report sent to you previously.

These documents are subject to the affidavits of non-disclosure which you signed earlier.

Sincerely, y .c W Brad Jones Regional Counsel

Enclosures:

1. Page 3 of Report 70-1113/82-18
2. Transcript

. ,j

'  ! * .x e'*

j by_.. " u' '

9601300169 FOIA 851219 PDR PDR KLIONSS-461 C . ' ,

F I

From the desk of. .

Mozart G. Ratner

- f

~

Mr. Uryc,

.i t __...._.

I thought you might like to see a copy of ourn First Amended Complaint.

MGR .

l l -

\

A.ugust 29, 1984 1

l l l 9

, . . e M

9 e

(

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'f BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF LABOR VERA M. ENGLISH )

)

v. )

)

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT This first amended complaint is filed on behalf of Vera M. English pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 5851, and implementing regulations under 29 C.F.R. S 24.1, et seg. The gravamen of the complaint is that Mrs. English was unlawfully intimidated, discriminated against and ultimately discharged by her employer on July 30, 1984, for exercising her statutory rights in carrying out the purposes of the Atomic Energy Ac't of 1954, by exposure and insistence upon correction of violations of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter NRC) rules and regulations, as well as by initiating, assisting and participating in an NRC investigation.

Mrs. English was hired on October 13, 1972, to work as a Laboratory Assistant for the General Electric Company, an NRC licensee, in the Nuclear Products Division, at its Wilmington, North Carolina facility. During her almost twelve years of employment there, Mrs. English was directly involved in the performance of laboratory procedures relating to radioactive

+8 l

i l

1 materials governed by NRC standards. Her prior background and I

training as a medical laboratory technician made her unusually I knowledgeable of and unusually sensitive to the dangers of nuclear radiation and the hazaFds of breach of NRC regulations and procedures.

On March 15, 1984, Mrs. English was discriminatorily transferred from her position and work station in the Chemet laboratory at the Fuels Manufacturing Operation (hereinafter FMO) upon express Company instructions that she is "not to attempt to re-enter the FMO complex unless escorted by a member of management." This followed a Company demand that she reveal all she knew and produce all evidence she had of Company misconduct, on pain of dismissal for insubordination.

Compliance would have given the Company an opportur.ity to destroy the proof.

Since December 15, 1983, Mrs. English has been continuously subjected to Company surveillance, harassment, entrapment, ridicule, intimidation and discrimination in an effort to coerce her to resign from employment. On J,i/ 30, 1984, Mrs. English was discriminatorily discharged, culminating the Company's continuous campaign and course of conduct to rid itself of her.

The Company's formal defense of the March 15th transfer, stated by letter on May 15, 1984, was that Mrs. English

" knowingly and intentionally failed to clean up (a) spill of j radioactive material." However, the transfer was originally

predicated upon five grounds, on two of which the Company, on review, - found Mrs. English not guilty and two of which were, ,

without explanation, simply abandoned, as if they had played no part in the transfer decision. The latter allegations, 4 and 5, referred to the consequences of Mrs. English's protected activities, and, since the original transfer decision was predicated in part on those activities, the transfer decision was ipso facto illegal. During the Company's appeal process, Mrs. English was arbitrarily denied the right to have an NRC representative present at the interview; the right to have a tape recorder; the opportunity to know the identity of her accusers; the right to question members of management who appeared against her; and the right to speak in her own defense, all in flagrant denial of procedural due process.

Mrs. English's discharge was allegedly based on a lack of work for her to perform. Both reasons, finally asserted, are false and pretextual.

The real reasons for the transfer, surveillance, intimidation and discharge are that Mrs. English repeatedly complained to Company management and her supervisors of violations of NRC imposed nuclear practices and, at the instigation of the NRC, on or about February 13, 1984, verbally disclosed, and on or about February 21, 1984, charged in writing to the NRC, that the Company had, and has continued, a policy and practice of successfully concealing and covering up from the NRC violations of NRC regulations and standards.

l i

The aforesaid company policy and practice, consisting, in part, of alteration and destruction of records and testing documentation, was and is designed to enable the Company to increase and/or maintain production without the hinderance of observing NRC safety standards. Although Mrs. English refused to reveal to management, notwithstanding the Company's threat of disciplinary action (including discharge) all of the sources of proof of guilt in Company records, out of fear that the Company would destroy or alter such proof, Mrs. English did make said evidence known to the NRC. As a consequence of Mrs.

English's complaint ar.d disclosura to the NRC, the NRC initiated an investigation of the Company's nuclear operations which is presently continuing.

The " intention [al] fail [ure] to clean up [a] spill of radioactive material," for which Mrs. English was ostensibly discharged, occurred on March 2, 1984. It constituted an attempt by Mrs. English to bring dramatically to the attention of management the hazards created by fellow employees on the preceding shift who spilled radioactive material and failed, in violation of regulations, and of their duty, to clean up before the end of their shift. Mrs. English's previous complaints to management and supervision about this practice had gone totally unremedied. On this occasion Mrs. English taped the contaminated area off with red tape (the indicated method for calling attention to contaminated areas), in the hope that management would be spurred to remedial action. Instead of

- - - . y -

taking remedial action against the contaminators who willfully left without cleaning up, Mrs. English was transferred out of the laboratory and constructively conditionally discharged on March 15, 1984. In sharpest contrast, employees who, to the knowledge of supervision, contaminated and failed to clean up after themselves were not even reprimanded. Moreover, supervisors, such as Frank Eschenhaur, who ordered employees deliberately to contaminate, were shielded and protected by highest management, Winslow and Sheely, in the face of Mrs.

English's disclosures and complaints to management and the NRC.

It is clear that by engaging in all of the aforesaid activities, Mrs. English was exercising rights protected by 42 U.S.C.A. S 2011 and S 5851(a)(1), (2) and (3), and that the Company's actions, culminating in the discriminatory transfer and discriminatory discharge, were in retaliation against her for having exercised the aforesaid rights, and thereby constitute flagrant and willful violations of the employee protection provisions of Federal law.

At the time of the discharge, Mrs. English was 59 years of age, a widow, without means of support other than her own earnings, entitled at age 60 to retire on a reduced General Electric Company pension, and unable, since her discharge, to find another job for which she was qualified. Mrs. English was unusually dedicated to her job and it meant more to her than simply a means of livelihood. As a consequence of the Company's illegally motivated intimidation, surveillance,

) hostility and discriminatory transfer and discharge, Mrs.

English has suffered monetary damages of lost compensation, humiliation, extreme mental and emotional pain and suffering, distress and depression, loss of opportunity to remain in and advance in her career as a laboratory technician, loss of professional status and reputation and incurring of legal fees and expenses. Hence, in addition to seeking reinstatement, with restoration of all attendant employee benefits, including back pay and front pay, and pension benefits, Mrs. English is entitled to an award of compensatory damages for pain and suffering, and an award of all costs, attorneys' fees and expenses reasonably incurred.

Respectfully submitted, d

MOZ' ART G. RATNER Mozart G. Ratner, P.C.

Suite 610 1900 M Street, N . %' .

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 223-9472

~

ARTHUR M. SCHILLER 1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1300 Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 331-8508 Attorneys for the Complainant, Vera M. English 74 Holland Drive Castle Hayne, North Carolina 28429 (919) 762-0080 August 27, 1984

s

'ur FIGsaw wei 00 " Y -

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE aanticicaars B. JONES vrec action 84-0029 tXy acceno or convensation o rc

" MTNOR ii case neview / status 09-26-84

' ' 07"E" (R . URYC) y,,,

couriocariAu ry accuesrc0 ves =o 1210

" I had a discussion with B. JONES regarding the confidentiality issue involving V. ENGLISH. I wanted to discuss the fact that in as much as the ALGR went public with her concerns whether that constituted a release of the confidentiality pledge.

J0NES called RATNOR and discussed the issue and RATNOR advised JONES that the ALGR was no longer to be considered a confidential source.

JONES advised he would send a letter to RATNOR confirming the conversation.

i

  • see l or b

/

PACPARED SY ( Daft 'SEP 2 g ng4 BRUNU C ACT40N mEQUIRED DATE afvitwCD SY -

s -

- M FICIAi " om8 Y -;J-i W;;,0;- ,

roam azz-rie aa.:

g

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20198H107&oldid=3339411"