ML20210Q929
| ML20210Q929 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1998 |
| From: | Fahey M, Paul R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210Q845 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-99-248 3-1998-007, NUDOCS 9908160158 | |
| Download: ML20210Q929 (25) | |
Text
-s , f.-
a:
,, s 3-1998-007 PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Alleged Discrimination Against a Radiation !
Protection Supervisor for Testifying as a Witness in Department of Labor Proceedings l
l l
Rlli Information in this record was deleted ,
in acccrdance with the fleedGm Ol Informal ion Act, exernplions "If 7 --
E01A._9.2 2'/ 7- - y'
~
i 9908160158 99081'3 NFE l 48 PDR wows,.
, IV
.. \; '
o CASE No. 3-1998-007
~%,
i United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....,/
Report of Investigation PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Alleged Discrimination Against a Radiation -
Protection Supervisor for Testifying as a Witness in Department of Labor Proceedings Office of Investigations Reported by 01: RIII .
7 g f[
t.
Ti tl e:. PERRY NUCLEAR POWER' PLANT-DISCRIMINATION AGAINST~A-RADIATION PROTESTION SUPERVISOR FOR TESTIFYING AS A WITNESS IN A .
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PROCEEDING Licensee: Case No.: 3-1998-007 Centerior.' Service Company Report Date: De c emb e r10, 19 98 P.O. Box 97,-A200
-Perry, OH 44081 Control Office: OI:RIII r,
Docket:No.: 50-440; 50-441 Status: CLOSED Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:
-,,..,._,,um- s A
, Mary Kay Fahey,- Special Agent Richard C. Paul,. Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations
. Field l0ffice, Region III Field Office, Region III
, s WARNING
'\
00.NOT DISSEMINATE, PLACE IN THE PUBLIC s D0DyMENT' ROOM OR DISCUSS'qHE CONTENTS s 0F THIS I REP 0 T OF INVESTIGATION 00TSIDE NRC WI'T OUT g - AUTH(ORI Y OF THENAPPROVING J
ICIAL OF S d
. REPORT. . NAUTHORIZ DISCLOS E MAY-RESUL IN ,
ADVERSE'AD NISTRATIV TION.A - OR CRIMINA PROSECUTION. , .
I t
9
" If
, SYNOPSIS .
This investigation -was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -
Commission, Office of Investigations, Region III, on February.2,1998, to determine whether a Radiation Protection
~ Supervisor (RPS) at the ' Perry Nuclear Power Plant was discriminated against for providing testimony as a witness in'a U.S. Department of Labor, Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) hearing concerning another employee.
Based upon evidence developed during the investigation and a review of evidence, it was concluded that the RPS had been discriminated'against after the Radiation Protection Manager counseled the-RPS on the day before he was scheduled Oo provide a deposition in an ERA matter involving a former employee and the licensee, Centerior Service Company.
r,
'P NOTJOR PUBLIC DISCLOSUREJ.ITHOUT- APPROVAE-OF FIELD- 0FFICE DI' REC-TOR ~, 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III l'
Case No.- 3-1998-015 I
3 4
1 e
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l
l NOT FOR PUBLIC OISCLOSURE11 UT APPROVAL OF
\EIELD DEEICLDIRECTOR,
~.- -
g ,
0FFICE OF INV TIGATIONS, -REEION III Case'No. 3-1998-015 2
=
- v
- p i
t '-
4 -TAB'LE10F CONTENTS '
Paae SYN 0PSIS..........................................:....... 1
' LIST:0F-INTERVIEWEES..................................... 5
' D ETAI LS 0 F- I N V E ST I GAT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- Appl i c a bl e ' Re gul a ti on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Purpose offInvestigation............................ 7 Background.......................................... 7 Interview of Alleger............................/... 7 l
- Coordination with Regional $taff.................... 12 !
Coordination with Regional Counse1.................. 12 l
' Document Review.........................c.......... 12 Evidence..................................../....... 14 Conc'lusion.......................................... 18 SUPPLEMENTAL.INFORMATION................................. 19 LLIST OF EXHIBITS......................................... 21
,( .NO,L-ERR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT, APPROVAL OfL-FIEL0iOFFICE DIRECTOR, '0FFICE OF I..NVESTIGATIONS, REGION III-I
~ Case No 13-1998-015:..
. 3 .
1 f i
_. Ia
g ff THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR' PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL _OF s F.LELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE '0F INVESTTGAT-IM57 REGION iib x.s _ .. _ .
~
Case No. 3-1998-015 4
n .
. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES 'I Exhibit BAHLEDA, Joseph, Ombudsman; Supervisor, Quality Assurance Audit Unit, Perry Nuclear Power Plant (Perry).......................................... 6 BRANDT , Ri cha rd , forme r Pl ant Manager , Pe rry . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 11 CONRAD, Howard B., Nuclear Engineer, Perry................ 7 DAILEY, James, Human Resources Coordinator, Perry.....N... 10 DOODY, Kevin R., former Radiological Engineer, Perry..... 12 LI EB , Robe rt , Radi ol ogi cal Engi nee r , Pe r ry. . . . . . . .'<. . . . . . . 33 0'REILLY, Mary, Attorney, Manager, External Affairs, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. . . . . ........ 4 SEARS, Joseph T., Manager, Radiation Protection, Perry... 3 SUTTON, Geprge P., Supervisor, Radiation Protection, Perry.................................................. 2 i
( NOT FOR-PUBLM DISCLOSUR FIELD ~ 0FFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE O(F WITH INVE,0VI-AFPR VAL OF STIGATIONS, 444W-III Case No.-3-1998-015 5
tg
- w. ,
i 1
((
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 1
i i
I l
i NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 4ITHOUT APPROVAL OF 5E%-IEL0,0FfiCT'1)ffECTORr 0FFICE 0F INVESTMAPMTR5, REN Case No. 3-1998-015 6 l
' DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Acolicable Reculations 10 CFR 50.-7.: Employee protection '.
Puroose of Investication This.-investigation was initiated on February 2,1998', to determine whether. George P. SUTTON, a Radiation Protection Supervisor.-(RPS) at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (Perry), was discriminated. against for providing testimony as a witness in a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) hearing, Kevin R. D0ODY v.
Centerior Energy, et al'(Case No. 97-ERA-43) ( Exhi bi t 1 ) .
1 Backcround 0n July.16, 1997, the U.S. Nuclear Regulator [ Comdfission (NRC),
Region III (RIII), received an allegation from SUTTON concerning alleged licensee management harassment because of SUTTON's involvement in an employment discrimination case against the licensee.
On February 2, 1998, this issue was revisited at an Allegation Review Board (ARB) and the Office of Investigations (01) was requested.to. initiate an investigation to determine whether SUTTON had been discriminated against.
Interview of Allecer (Exhibit 2)
~ 0n March 3,1998, SUTTON was interviewed by 0I in Eastlake, OH, i regarding the allegation he.had reported to RIII. SUTTON provided substantial.ly the following information:
SUTTON stated'that DOODY was terminated from Perry on March 19, 1997. He further explained that he and DOODY have been friends
.for thirteen years. SUTTON had' recommended DOODY for a position a t.i Pe r ry . On or about March 26, 1997, SUTTON advised his supervisor, Craig REITER, that-DOODY had informed him (SUT, TON) j that he .(SUTTON) would be- subpoenaed in .000DY's DOL proceeding, j SUTTON subsequently was. contacted by Centerior Energy, Inc.
i NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF IELD 0FF'ICiMRECIORr4FFhVESTTG'ATref;S, REGIQ Case No. 3-1998-015 7
i (CEI) Attorney Mary O'REILLY, who advised that no furtber l action was necessary until D0ODY actually brought suit against the cdmpany (Exhibit 2, pp. 7-9).
l On April 15, 1997, SUTTON was contacted by O'REILLY:, to . !
schedule an interview between he and DOL Investigator Anthony l INCRISTI for the following day concerning D00DY's DOL complaint. SUTTON advised O'REILLY during that telephone conversation that the licensee "wasn't going to be happy with what I had to say " SUTTON met with INCRISTI on April 16, 1998, and provided a written statement to INCRISTI. SUTTON declined to be represented by CEI legal counsel dur.ing the interview with INCRISTI, which O'REILLY advised was hi,s right, but SUTTON subsequently and voluntarily provided O'REILLY with a copy of his statement to DOL (Exhibit 2, pp. 10-12).
During the first week of July 1997, SUTTON wa.s served with a I subpoena to provide testimony during a deposition in9 the DOODY I DOL hearing on July 17, 1997. The subpoena was served upon l SUTTON by his current supervisor, Joseph T. SEARS, Manager, Radiation Protection. SUTTON then contacted O'REILLY, who l scheduled meetings with SUTTON on July 9 and 10, 1997. On July 9,1997, O'REILLY and SUTTON discussed a discovery request which included approximately 400 questions. On July 10, 1997, SUTTON and Robert LIEB, Radiological Engineer, Perry, met with O'REILLY and watched a movie on how to conduct themselves in court. SUTTON and O'REILLY continued to discuss the questions in the discovery request (Exhibit 2, pp.12-16, 22).
It was during this second meeting that SUTTON recalled that O'REILLY wanted him to " help her get into Mr. 000DY's head" (Exhibit 2, pp. 13-14). When SUTTON refused, O'REILLY became i angry and told SUTTON, ". . . you'll do what you're told to do" (Exhibit 2, p. 14). SUTTON told O'REILLY he refused to do a
" character assassination on (a) friend of mine" (Exhibit 2, p.
14). SUTTON recalled that O'REILLY threatened to subpo.ena him in. order to obtain the information she wanted, and SUTTON advised that he would voluntarily appear (Exhibit 2, p. 14).
SUTTON stated that following these two meetings, he felt a's though it was in his best interest not to appear at the deposition.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS %&SMEJLITliO1LTAPPM L OF IIELD OFFICE-DIRECTOR, 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, II Case No. 3-1998-015 8
"I felt that when I walked out of that office after talking with her (0'REILLY), that I was in a lose / lose situation,
.that I could not win, from whatever I did from then on, that I couldn't win. I-was in a lose / lose situation with the company. -
I was in.a position where if I told the truth, I was in trouble with the company and if I didn't tell the truth, I i probably wouldn't have been able to live with myself anyway" (Exhibit 2, pp. 19-20). 1 0'REILLY' told.SUTTON that she did not expect him to lie for the company. O'REILLY explained that a company attorney would be present during the deposition. SUTTON stated that.he ' declined to be represented-(Exhibit 2, pp. 20-21). -
Within the next few days, SUTTON had a telephqne conversation with DOODY and D0ODY asked him about the-movie he had watched about how to-conduct himself in court. SUTTON a.sked 000DY how he had found out about the movie, but DOODY joked about it and was evasive. SUTTON assumed that LIEB had provided the information, since only he, LIEB and O'REILLY had been present
.(Exhibit 2, pp. 17-18).
On July 16, 1997, (the day before SUTTON was scheduled to provide his deposition in the 000DY hearing) SUTTON was contacted.by SEARS, who requested that SUTTON meet with him before SUTTON left work for the day. When SUTTON arrived at
. SEARS' office, SEARS had-some paper 1 in his hand and suggested that they take a_ walk outside. SEARS asked SUTTON if he had any discussion with DOODY pertaining to 000DY's case. SUTTON responded, "Of course I have." Without any further question, SEARS advised SUTTON that he was in a conflict of interest situation with the company and was subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. SEARS handed SUTTON copies .of two: procedures from the Corporate Reference Manual, one was the Corporate Compliance Program (CP-102), and the other-was the Conflict of Interests Policy (LE-101)(Exhibit 2, pp. 21-24)'. I SUTTON asked SEARS if he were going to fire him (SUTTON). He 1 (SEARS) said, "no, we're going to consider this a verbal i reprimand" and he said, "I'm. going to put a letter in your j
'FIEL0 TUNTi(
o '
Case No. 3-1998-015 9
ifile" (Exhibit 2, p'._23). SUTTONstatedthathetoldkEARS that he considered this- harassment. SUTTON further stated that -
while looking through the policies that SEARS handed him, the first. sentence indicated that a thorough fact finding investigation should be-conducted as soon as possible after a.
. violation occurs. SUTTON told SEARS that he was making an accusation against him and he asked SEARS about an investigation that was supposed to have been conducted. SUTTON claimed that, SEARS did not provide him with an answer. SUTTON stated that SEARS never asked him about the content of his conversations with 000DY, but SUTTON stated that he told SEARS that he had~not provided DOODY with any information (Exhibit 2, pp. 23-25).
l
.SUTTON further stated that SEARS cautioned him. He (SEARS) ,
said, "when you give testimony in this case, he said, you need.
to be damn careful what you say" (Exhibit 2, p. 25). SUTTON tasked.. SEARS why he was giving him the letter of rd'primand on the day before he was scheduled to be deposed, but SEARS did n'ot answer the question (Exhibit 2, p. 29).
SUTTON told OI that he understood SEARS' comment to mean that he should not'put the company in jeopardy, that he should be careful about what he -said or he would find himself in "real hot water." SUTTON acknowledged that prior to his July 16, 1997_ conversation with SEARS, it had never occurred to him that any of-the conversations he had with D0ODY could have-been misconstrued as potentially being in a conflict of interest situation. SUTTON indicated that the first time any manager at Perry, mentioned a potential conflict of 1-nterest situation with him was when SEARS spoke to him on July 16, 1997. SUTTON stated that several of his supervisors knew that he and DOODY were friends (Exhibi.t 2, pp. 25-26, 28).
SUTTON .left work following his conversation with. SEARS. "When I left (the) site, I was a mess, an emotional mess. I thought the company was going to fire me. I thdught I was going to go in theLnext morning and my badge was going to be pulled, and I was -- they were going to terminate.me." SUTTON visited D,00DY on hiszway home with the intention of telling DOODY that he,was not going to have anything to do with him anymore. When he related what had. happened to DOODY, DOODY suggested SUTTON contact the NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Don KOSLOFF, at E OF
. Case No. 3-1998-015 10 e
1 Perry. KOSLOFFwasnotavailableandSUTTONsubsequenbly i contacted-Jay HOPKINS, RIII Senior Allegation Coordinator l (Exhibit 2, pp. 29-30). I SUTTON stated that he went home and told his wife what happened. He told her that he did not expect to have a job. tile next day. SEARS telephoned SUTTON that evening at home. SEARS told SUTTON that he knew SUTTON was upset and he just wanted to I make sure that SUTTON was okay. SUTTON asked SEARS why he was ;
doing this. SEARS told SUTTON that O'REILLY had identified l SUTTON as the person who'had " leaked" information to D00DY's
' a t t o r n e'y . - SUTTON again _ reiterated that' he consider.ed this to be harassment (Exhibit 2, pp. 31-32). ,,
i SUTTON' explained to OI that.the nature of his conversations with DOODY centered around the fact of a lawsuit by DOODY l against CEI. SUTTON stated that while he sti.11 socializes with
.' l 0000Y, he has never provided D0ODY with any infornietion. I SUTTON further stated that heldid not provide any information which would, have compromised the company's legal strategy. "I didn't know what the company's-strategy was. How could I provide legal information without knowing what the company's strategy was" (Exhibit 2, p.33)? SUTTON told OI that there were documents that D0ODY had requested from him, one being a l
-technical-specification at Perry. SUTTON stated that he told DOODY that he'would not provide him with any information, documents or records from the company (Exhibit 2, pp. 33-34).
On. July 17, 1997, SUTTON provided written documentation'of his l
He also sent a complaint to the NRC, via certified mail. -
letter of complaint to the Perry Ombudsman, Joseph BAHLEDA, I indicating that he was being intimidated and harassed for being about to participate in a deposition related to D00DY's DOL proceeding (Exhibit 2, pp. 34-35,.
On SUTTON's next day of work, July 21, 1997, SEARS requested
~
that SUTTON review the letter of counseling that was going to i be placed in.his.(SUTTON's) personnel file. SUTTON. told SEARS it was not accurate and while several changes were made to the
. letter, SUTTON-. refused to sign the letter acknowledging that-he !
had reviewed the letter (Exhibit 2, p. 36).
i NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF Case.No. 3-1998-015 11-
BecausethereappearedtobenoprogressontheOmbudsban's investigation into SUTTON's complaint, he contacted D0L on January 7,1998, and filed a complaint. SUTTON stated that ths !
Ombudsman's investigation w'as subsequently completed, and SUTTON was informed around the end of January 1998; that the !
letter of counseling would be removed from his personnel file. 1 SUTTON then withdrew his 00L complaint (Exhibit 2, pp. 45-48).
Coordination with Reaional Staff On March 13, 1998, HOPKINS was provided with a copy of SUTTON's March 3, 1998, interview for review to determine what action l j
was required to resolve any technical issues. 1 On March 20, 1998, John A. GROBE, Director, Division of Reactor !
Safety, RIII, advised by memorandum that the Plant Support !
Branch 2 staff determined that no new safetyi. concerns were i identified in the OI transcript and the OI investigation !
priority should remain the same (High).
l Coordination with Reaional Counsel On March 31, 1998 e A.. BERSON, RIII Counsel, advised that l f
Document Review -
Ombudsman Investiaation On March 30, 1998, First Energy Attorney Michael BEITING provided the existing documentation from the Ombudsman's investigation into.SUTTON's complaint of July 17, 1997 (Exhibit
- 8). The only document in this package generated by BAHLEDA is a March 25, 1998 memorandum from BAHLEDA to BEITING concerning BAHLEDA's recollection of his investigation (Exhibit 8, p. 2).
BAHLEDA told OI that he received SUTTON's complaint within a day or two of the letter dated July 17, 1997. BAHLEDA stated that after reading SUTTON's complaint, he determined that SEARS had taken appropriate action in counseling SUTTON. BAHLEDA admitted that he did not complete an Ombudsman Concern Report NOT OR PUBLIC DLSCl.0S E WITHOUT APPROVAL
'FI E LD ,0fFIC E IRECTOR','0FFICE 0 SIISATTONS, REGION III
~
Case No. 3-1998-015 12 9
to document SUTTON's complaint, nor did he conduct any i investigation within the generally required 45 days (Exhibit 6, pp. 7-9).
BAHLEDA subsequently met with SEARS during September 1997 concerning SUTTON's complaint. BAHLEDA stated that SEARS -
confirmed the information SUTTON had provided BAHLEDA, that
, they (SUTTON and SEARS) had a meeting just prior to SUTTON's deposition with 000DY's lawyer (Exhibit 6, p. 7-11).
BAHLEDA stated that he generated notes of conversations with several employees, but shredded all documentation. ..He further stated that he is not required to issue any final formal report ,
once he has completed an investigation. BAHLEDA denie'd that l anyone instructed him to delay an investigation into this I matter, it was his own decision to defer the investigation and it was-his own decision to reinstate the inve.stigation. '
BAHLEDA subsequently worked with SEARS in hav'ing t'he letter of counseling removed from SUTTON's personnel file (Exhibit 6, pp.
12,16-17,21-22).
Perry Suoervisor's Handbook On June 2, 1998, Attorney Ernest BLAKE, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, provided a copy of the Perry Supervisor's Handbook, issued by then Plant Manager Richard.BRANDT (Exhibit 9). The Introduction indicates that the Supervisor's Handbook is designed to provide each Perry supervisor with a compilation of expectations and guidelines to ensure he or she is prepared to perform the supervisory role consistently (Exhibit 9, p. 4).
AGENT's NOTE: The Supervisor's Handbook provides conflicting information concerning the nature of counseling and whether employee counseling is considered disciplinary. i The handbook indicates that, " Counseling is a supportive discussion process by a manager to help an employee define and !
work through problem situations that affect job performance l (Exhibi.t 9, p. 27). Yet, the handbook also states that, "'The i Disciplinary Process consists of the following items: 1.
Counseling; 2. Verbal / Oral warning (1" step of disciplinary V
Case No. 3-1998-015 13
action); 3. Writteri notice; 4. Suspension - time off kithout pay; and 5. Discharge (Exhibit 9, p. 29).
BRANDT was interviewed by OI on July 23, 1998, and stated that when he prepared the Supervisor's Handbook, it was wintendec! to be a " quick guide, it was not-intended to be definitive policy.
It would give you a general overview, as I pointed out, of policies and practices without going into detail" ' Exhibit 11, '
- p. 13).
During his OI interview, James DAILEY, Human Resources Coordinator, Perry, stated that although there is no written guidance or disciplinary policy at Perry, it was his opinion that a letter of counseling is not considered discipli' nary action. ~
DAILEY further discounted the information contained in the Supervisor's Handbook since .the handbook was not issued by the corporate, human resources or legal of.fices (Exhibit 10,
-pp. 5-6, 10). 9 Evidence The following evidence was obtained regarding SUTTON's allegation the he was discriminated against for providing witness testimony during a deposition in a DOL matter, 000DY v.
Centerior Energy.
- 1. Protected Activity SUTTON was subpoenaed to appear and provide a deposition for the claimant, in DOODY v. Centerior Energy (Case No. 97-ERA-43) on July 17, 1997. DOODY alleged to DOL that he was discharged from Perry for raising safety and health issues to management (Exhibit 2, pp. 11-12).
~
l
- 2. Knowledae of SUTTON's Protected Activity l
During the investigation, testimony by SEARS and O'REILLY disclosed that they were aware that SUTTON had been subpoenaed I to provide a deposition in DOODY v. Centerior Energy on ,
{
July 17, 1997. !
)
SEARS stated that he received a number of subpoenas in the DOODY v. Centerior Energy matter from Human Resources, Perry, '
NO OR PUBLIC % CLOSURE'W- M T APPB07 L F FIELD OFFICE IRECTO'R, OFT 4CE-OF INVESTIEATTONS, RE PrfI Case No. 3-1998-015 14 ;
l
.. j whichhethenserveduponthedeponents,SUTTONandotber !
employees (Exhibit 3, pp. 7-9). !
0'REILLY stated that she became aware that SUTTON had been subpoenaed to provide a deposition in DOODY v. Centerior Energy ,
in late June or early July 1997. O'REILLY stated that she also ]
met with SUTTON on July 8,1997, to prepare SUTTON for his deposition (Exhibit 4, pp. 7, 12)
- 3. Unfavorable Action Taken Acainst SUTTON l On July 16,. 1997, on the day before SUTTON was required (by subpoena) to provide a deposition in D000Y v. Centerior Energy, )
SEARS contacted SUTTON and counseled him about violathig the l CEI conflict of interest policies (Exhibit 3, p.11). SUTTON asked SEARS if he was going to fire him. He (SEARS) said, "no, we're going to consider this a verbal reprima.nd and he said I'm going to put a letter in your file" (Exhibit 2, p? 23). SEARS could not recall whether he characterized this counseling session as a verbal reprimand to SUTTON (Exhibit 3, p.16).
SEARS subsequently placed a memorandum dated July 17, 1997, referencing a " Counseling Session with George Sutton-RPS Supervisor" in SUTTON's personnel 'ile and f rwarded copies of the letter to O'REILLY, and DAILEY[- -
M )I DAILEY told 0I that a letter documenting a counseling session !
might be used during a performance evaluation in a negative l way, depending on the nature of the counseling (Exhibit'10, p. l 7). BRANDT stated that generally, if someone were taking a '
" vertical improvement in positions within his own department, I would expect the individual making the selection to look in the file. He would look at what he's talking to the individual about" (Exhibit 11, p.18) . l l
AGENT'S NOTE: The memorandum documenting the counseling session, when placed in SUTTON's personnel
- file, could under certain circumstances, be considered an adverse action, in that, it could be reviewed and possibly affect SUTTON's promotional opportunities '
and/or performance evaluation.
NOTj FOR UBLIC RLM1 0 A-17 FIELD _0FFICE D CTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-1998-015 15
- 4. Did the Unfavorable Action Result from SUTTON Enaahina in Protected Activity Prior to his. deposition on July 17,' 1997, SUTTON made it clear to 0'REILLY that his statements would not be favoratie to t.he company (Exhibit 2, pp. 10-14; Exhibit 4, p. 24).
On July 16,.1997, (after D0ODY contacted LIEB at home
~
concerning his deposition), O'REILLY filed a motion requesting that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) order D0ODY not to have any further contact with SUTTON, LIEB or Howard CONRAD, Perry Nuclear Engineer. The ALJ denied the motion. That same day, O'REILLY contacted SEARS and asked him to " remind" SUTTON of his " obligation to the. company, his duty of loyalty, h'is fiduciary responsibility, and reminding him that he was not to !
reveal attorney / client privileged information" (Exhibit 4, p.19). ,
o SEARS stated that O'REILLY contacted him on July 16, 1997, and
~
asked him to speak with SUTTON about disclosing any information or documents to DOODY or his attorney. SEARS could not recall whether he might have characterized the subsequent counseling session he had with SUTTON as a " verbal reprimand." "I think George might have taken it that way because he thought that I was reprimanding him for something that he had done" (Exhibit 3, pp. 10-11, 16).
O'REILLY stated that she did not request that SEARS speak to either CONRAD or LIEB. "I was not concerned about the other !
two. I was not. Howard CONRAD had cooperated with me fully. :
He had expressed complete understanding of what the I attorney / client privilege meant. Rob LIEB was scared and I fully expected to get him protected from a deposition. So I
. don't -- and as it turned out, Rob LIEB was not deposed" (Exhibit 4, p. 19).
SEARS denied that he realized that SUTTON was scheduled to be deposed the next day. SEARS initially told 01 that his knowledge of the DOODY case was limited. He stated later ,
during his 01 interview that, "I knew that he was working-I didn't 'know exactly the date that he would be giving any subpoena (sic) because I knew that he was working on that as
\ NOT FOR PUBLIC DISC [05URE WITHOUT APFROVAL OF IIELO.0FFTCE s DIRECTOR, 0FFICE OPxINVESTIGATIONS)g0lPIOx N
Case No. 3-1998 d15 16
4 other people were for--several days. SoIdidnotrecablthe
- exact.date of that deposition or subpoena" (Exhibit 3, pp. 17- ,
18).
SEARS told 0I that he did not recall telling SUTTON,,that he !
should' be careful about what' he said during the deposition; and !
denied. that SUTTON told him during their meeting that this was j harassment (Exhibit 3, pp. 17-18). l l
AGENT'S NOTE: SEARS admitted that in retrospect, he !
could understand how SUTTON could have thought that he !
(SEARS) was trying to intimidate him (SUTTON) ,(Exhibit 3, pp. 25-26). ,
l O'REILLY stated that she' was " absolutely" unaware that SEARS l had documented his counseling session with SUTTON and had she lacing.the j been letter asked, she would in SUTTON's file.have advised admitted O'REILLY against SEARS t'o OI p'that she could see' how SUTTON could construe the placing of the letter !
- in his file as intimidation (Exhibit 4,-pp. 21-23).
'BAHLEDA. stated that he questioned SEARS during the course of his Ombudsman's. investigation into SUTTON's concern. ~ SEARS indicated to BAHLEDA that his intent in meeting with SUTTON was to caution SUTTON after O'REILLY had indicated that she felt that. SUTTON was. sharing proprietary information with' 000DY (Exhibit 6, p. 10). BAHLEDA stated that while he did not view the letter documenting the counseling. session as a " letter or
, reprimand," he'did feel that the timing of the letter being placed in SUTTON's file was " inappropriate" and he could understand.how.SUTTON might get the impression that this was a sort of intimidation tactic (Exhibit 6, pp.17-18).
CONRAD acknowledged that on.or about July 17, 1997, the
.information he provided during his deposition in the D0ODY v.
Centerior . Energy matter was not entirely favorable to the company. CONRAD stated that af ter talking with LIEB, and prior to providing'information during his deposition, CONRAD had prepared and submitted a. statement indicating that he might be in a conflict 'of in-terest situation. CONRAD stated that L'IEB had told him that SEARS had brought this conflict of in.terest FIELO ' I i R ION III Case No. 3-1998-015 17
issue to LIEB's attention. CONRADindicatedthathenkver received any verbal reprimand concerning a possible conflict of
' interest situation (Exhibit 7, pp. 7-9) .
I LIEB stated that he had a' conversation with SEARS concerniog !
the company's conflict of interest policy, during which SEARS j provided LIEB with copies of the corporate policy on conflict I of interest and reviewed the policy with LIEB. Following LIEB's conversation with SEARS, LIEB contacted CONRAD and )
j informed him about the documents that were given to him by SEARS. LIEB did not prepare a conflict of interest letter.
LIEB stated that he did not have a similar conversation with SUTTON (Exhibit 13, pp. 13-14).
AGENT'S NOTE: SUTTON, LIEB and CONRAD have all admitted that they had conversations with D0ODY after his termination. SUTTON was the only one out of the three that had a memorandum documenting 'a codnseling session concerning the company conflict of interest policy placed in his personnel file. LIEB was counseled, but no memorandum documenting the counseling was prepared. CONRAD was not counseled.
Conclusion Based on the evidence developed during the investigation, it is concluded that SUTTON was discriminated against after SEARS counseled SUTTON on the day before he was scheduled to provide a deposition in a DOL ERA matter involving a former employee and the licensee, Centerior Energy.
OR PUBLI b if
() IRE OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-1998-015 18
, SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION U
,0n ' December 8, 1998, William P. SELLERS, Senior Legal. Advisor for Regulatory Enforcement, General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justjce, Washington, D.C., advised that this case did not warrant prosecution and rendered an oral declination.
Exhibit 12, Transcript of the Interview with Kevin DOODY, is included as an exhibit but is not referenced in the Report of Investigation.
'e l
l l
g NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSU THOUT APPROVAL OF '
s v FIElbl F{._j-ICE DIRECTU N OF IN TIGAT N M I l Case No. 3-1998-015 19
i j.,.
l
\
l THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT F0R PilBLI(DIS _CLDSUNBERORL 0F IELO%fqCJJI1(ECTOR, WFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III-Case No. 3-1998-015 20
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. Descriotion 1 Investigation Status Record, 01 Case No. 3-1998-007, dated February 2,1998.
.2 Transcript of Interview of Sutton, dated March 3, 1998, with Attachment 1, SUTTON's Review of Transcript, dated March 27, 1998.
3 Transcript of Interview of SEARS, dated April '27, 1998, with Attachment 1, SEARS' Review'of Transcript, dated June 4, 1998.
4 Transcript of Interview of 0'R;EILLY, dated April 27, 1998, with Attachment 1,'O'REILLY's Review of Transcript dated June 4,1998.
5 6 Transcript of Interview of BAHLEDA, dated April 27, 1998, with Attachment 1, BAHLEDA's ;
Review of Transcript, dated June 4, 1998. '
7 Transcript of Interview of CONRAD, dated April 9, f 1998.
8 Perry Ombudsman's Report, dated March 30, 1998.
9 Perry Supervisor's Handbook 10 Transcript of Interview of DAILEY, dated June 4, 1998, with Attachment 1, DAILEY's Review of Transcript, dated July 23, 1998. l 11 Transcript of Interview of BRANDT, dated July 23, 1998, with Attachment 1, Perry Nuclear Power Plant Supervisor's Handbook. i l
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITH0 APPROVAL OF I
FIELD OFFTCE' DIRECTOR, -OFFICEJF,IM STIG TIOJUWTE'G'iDN G III. l m
Case No. 3-1998-015 21
l
)
12- Tran'ccript of Interview of DOODY, Dated April 18, 1998.
13 Transcript ~ of Interview of LIEB, dated June 4, 1998, with Attachment 1, LIEB's Review of -
Transcript, dated July 23, 1998, Attachment 2, ;
Letter from BLAKE dated August 10, 1998. j
~14 Perry Ombudsman Program, Plant Administrative l Procedure, Perry Operations Manual (PAP-0217),
effective November 1, 1993.
~
l l
t l
T FOR PUBLI'C D MCIGEURE WITH0 ROVA N E @ 0FFICEly TIGATI , REGIO T' :
Case No. 3-1998-015 22 e _