ML100290375

Discrimination Concerns (2002-Present)

ML100290375
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	11/23/2009
From:	NRC/OI
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0047, RIV-2002-A-0098
Download: ML100290375 (8)

Text

Callaway Discrimination Concerns (2002-Present) 01 rpt No. 4-2002-032.

substantiated:

N RIV-2002-A-0098 Received 12J0 Closed 8/21/2003 RC 1,(b)(7)(C)

You were subjected to employment discrimination,[...

.b7C o w occasions, because of your discussions with the RC regardin nd for re)O ortina safety conc=ms t Ivuramotover inia20oY u believe that you were I nX7 c S i7Sc Closure Basis The NRC Office of Investigations (01) conducted an investigation regarding your complaint of alleged employment discrimination for reporting safety concerns to the NRC. Based on a review of the testimony and documentary evidence, 0f did not find sufficient evidence to support your complaint of employment discrimination as alleged.The 01 conclusion has been reviewed by the NRC staff which determined that further Investigation was not warranted.

Of rpt No. 4-2003-027, substantiated:

N RIV-2003-A-0052 Received 4/28/2003 Closed 4/3012004 Individual alleges the licenset ered a hostile work environment In retaliation for his having filed a D0L complaint b 7 C In addition, the individual believes that a chilling effect exists at Callaway 12 suit of how-he was treated and wh I , n- *^'"l- in the ¶ 77)C _Jabout his pending DOL

)( ) ( r Closure Basis 01 conducted an Investigation regarding your complaint of alleged employment discrimination for reporting salety concerns to the NRC and subsequently filing a 00L complaint.

Based on a review of the testimony and documentary evidence, 01 did not find sufficient evidence to support your complaint of employment discrimination as alleged. The 01 conclusion has been reviewed by the NRC staff, and it was determined that further Investigation was not warranted.

This concern was not substantiated.

01 rpt No. 4-2005-017 substantiated:

N/A RIV-2005-A-0026 Received 2/22/2005 Closed 7/12/2005h tlensee an ahe reason you were nos n u)(7)(c)1()7) 6 h -nause yon w re at oddls (o'- nu"merous oc ions) with Ihef(b)(7)(C) s(7)(C) er hs -parent disrerd for following procedures.

Tapepr b-dylual Who was u effr ion in ti(b)(7)(C) rwas a dose friend of thw l(b)(7)(a) with t F doht ofil lmtn , .b)j7j CA (b)(7){C)

...Exemptions nst The licenses and alleger reached a mutually agreeable settlement under eery ADR. The settlement agreement was reviewed and approved by eGC.Monday, November 23, 2009 Page I qf 8 nfotma~on in this record was deleted In accrdanlce with the Freedom of Inftina#OM AA, Uf rpt No. 4-2006-001.

substantiated:

N RIV-2005-A-0099 Received 8/2312005 Closed 7/24/2006lb)(7)(C)Your emploment was( ý(b7b, __77)( ) You lev hat th C A" A -r' ,,&tqn r= n mrfnnnr 1Pn l h tause rnnvp.....nr inf in th(b)(7)(, h7 1-You stated that thý (b)(7)(c) was disproportionate with th (b)(7)(C) aken for other individuals With similar oenses.Closure Basis The NRC's Office of Investigations (01) Initiated an Investigation od October 18, 2005.1to determine if you had been subjected to employment discrimination for having raised nuclear safety concerns.

"3ised upon the~evidence developed during the investigation, 01 did not substantiate that you had been subjected to employment discrimination for having raised nuclear safety concerns.Testimony and documentary evidence gathered during the NRC investigation determined that AmerenUE Headquarters person reLiocated in St. Louis, Missouri, conducted an Investigation, Independent of Callaway management, about a(b)(7)(C)

Ias detected by Headquarters personne I Ihe Headquarters personnel who initiated the Investigation were un e that you had raised nuclear safety concerns.

The AmerenUE Headcuarters Inwstioatlon found that uni hadith)(71 M I (b)(7)(C)7nn th g In u 'natin v,,, ct i + ...... ....,.. ."fely concerns on three occasions regarding (b)(7)(C) o Callaway Plant managemei The...._nager/supervisors were not Involved n dArlczln n mrtam i ..... )(7)(C)nor were they Involved In the decision t (b)(7)(C)Testimonial and documentary evidence revealed that youf(b)(7)(C)

.O rpt No. substantiated:.

N/A RIV-2005-A-O1 02 Received 6/29/2005 Closed 5 5/2006 our former employer (Wackenhut) has been looking for, b)(7)(C)" ' )C) ver since you filed a harassment and I I crplaint in 2002. You vethat th-rm proper handling of a F(b)-(7)(C) indicative of their -Intentlons(b)(7)(C) I(b)(7)(C)

Iafer V-OU Riulcurmn emolovee concern regarding the handling.

~the investigation.

You had I (b)(7)(C) nd have not been .p. vIded any rma on concern no e status of yur ernployment. since received (b)(7)(C)I Closure Basis We understand that you were able to reach an agreement with your former employer to resolve your discrimination complaint through the use of alternative dispute resolution.

Your agreement was reviewed by the Oflice of Ihe General Counsel and found acceptable; therefore, no lurther NRC action Aill be taken to address this complaint.

Monday, November 23, 2009 Page 2 of.8 01 rpt No.substantiated:

N/A RIV-2005-A-01 47 Received 11/15/2005 Closed 7/5/2006 Th Youwere wsublected to emalorment discrimination because tou raised a concern that a troughth useoflternat s Op u r alsol raised a series of concerviwbyheOfC) thGeý(b)(7)(C)

J context of otbservlna the halndllncl.O01(b)(7)(C)

I(bh(7)(C)

[(b)()(C)

~ou'ract0ob),, o)(C, theose rvations and concerns to your supevnisor resulted In adto q you tha~en(to i I Nb)( 7)2C)3bsbaia (b)(7)(C)

,. .... ."= ,(b ,( ,,( , ju b e lie v e -tha t th e a lle g a tio n s a g a in s t y ou w e re t ru m p ed- u p a s part of an ll(1)7( ' 'I I~ ))( (C) ,..(b( ) C is a res ult of your raising concerns ab~t Xxx's actions, filln n-a EC oc~ff otctln;.ff'NRO about the situation, and hiring a lawyer to advise and defend you In connection with the internal charges against you.Closure Basis The alleger was able to reach an agreement with his/her former employer" to resolve the discrimination complaint through the use of alternative dispute resolution.

The agreement was reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel and found acceptable; therefore, no further NRC action will be taken to address this complaint.

01 rpt No. 4-2006-035 substantiated.

N RIV-2006-A-fJ033 Received 4/13120o6 Closed 4/7/2009 You were subjected to retaliation for red'lng th (b)(7)(C) ,o the Employee o-ogram in that you did not_(_)(7)(C__

__ _ ___ __ __Closure Basis 01 initiated a separate investigation to determine whether you were subjected to employment discrimination by AmerenUE for raising safety concerns.

The investigator Interviewed vous people and reviewed documentary evidence which showed that Callawan managers were challenge I .........

I (b)(7)(I, 1(b)(7)(C)

.(b)(7)(C) ebr~urvisor stated that while he was' a'ware of a report that an-L he was not aware thatyo had raised the concern. t..--yo (b)(7)(C)()7)A(C)tn fi la ~lw d~ m~ tr~ ~egm Pc n.m n haA aa lqrb()C Based on the evidence developed during the investigation, your concern of discrimination for raising safety concerns was not substantiated.

Monday, November 23, 2009 Page 3 of 8 01 rpt No.substantiated:

N/A RIV-2006-A-.0126 Received 12/1/2006 Closed 10/16/2007 In June 2005, plant management (b)(7)(C)raising a safety concern perta)nlng a th (b)")(C .aratf Closure Basis Settlement Agreement Signed. -This refers to my (b)(7)(C) etter which advised you'- M-P's Office of the General Counsel (OGC) would review the agre'hnt you r hod with AmerenUE onl (b)(7)(C) regarding your complaint ol employment discrimination for having raised safety concerns.

OGC cor'fi eted Its of the agreement and had no legal objectrons to the settlement.

Therefore, this allegation case is being closed with no further actions.O rpt No. 4-2007-028 substantiated:

N RIV-2007-A-0009 Received 1/23/2007 Closed 12/14/2007 You were subjected to employment discrimination, In the form of (b)(7)(C)a hon,=. in and for qaising nuclear safety concerns related to the inspection and testin Closure Basis The NRC Office el Investigations (OI) has completed its investigation into your discrimination concern. Based on a review of the 01 Investigation and all other pertinent Information, the NRC could not substantiate that your employment termination was a result of you having engaged In a protected activity (such as raising safety concerns).

Callaway management acknowledqed that you did rise a safety concern1(b)(7)(C) l(b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C) (b.. ...C-(b)(7)(C)I Adetermined that you= did re..vj(b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C) .Accordinato Callaway manaaement, Callaway had been a noor perorming lant and it was felt thj(b)(7)(C) 1(b)(7)(C)

The process had a sil ficant impact on many Callaway employees and resulted Ir(b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C)Although you dic (b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C) a Your being(b)(7)(c) l(b)(7)(C) nd t,_ esult of your raising nuclear safety concerns related to the Inspection and testino(b)(7)(C) U(b)(7)(C)

I(b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C)L1 j (b)(7)(C)There Is neither testimonial nor documentary evidence to support your assertion that result of you having raised nuclear safety concerns related to the Inspection and testi (b)(7)(C)Tb This concern could not be substantiated.

Monday, Novemnber 23, 20069P Page 4 of 8 01 rpt No. 4-2007-040 substantiated:

N RIV-2007-A-0022 Received 2J12007 Closed 4/1o/2008 You were sublected to amnnov ent discrimination for having raised safety concerns related to th (b You raised ur concerns to su supervisors and finally ao (b) artment.Y 9 d4(b)(7)(C) fter reporting your Issu e(d)bnd youd(b)(7)(C)

Closure Basis The NRC's Office of Investigations, Region IV. Field Office launched an Investigation Into wh..Rther you had been subjected to employment discrimination for having raised safety concerns onilune 26, 2007.-.hen mediation efforts failed to reach a mutual settlement, In summary, the Investigatron was not aole'to substail~ate that you a ed....ga sa...fAtlv

...... th:; pr- ....... nwr ...... Ihna ........ na rn7,u]ha (b)(7)(C)i nos concern was not su stantated, Fro0 n yanvfoJ thrnjnh F)PrAmhnr 2nn"R .OU claimed to have Yywv, ZZZZ, and Possibly LLLL that thc (b)(7)(C) kVere-prot being followed, iLe (b)(7){C)1(b)(7)(C)

Interview "ZI these Nndivilduals failied to support that you had raised nuclear safety concerns or that you hadentified thal(b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C)

You were unable to provide evidelne or documentation to support that you had raised nuclear safety concerns.( provided testimony regardino.

the biennial b 7 testified that prior to theiLj you had not raised concerns to his attention nor had you requested an L44btheprogram.

XXXX testified that as far as he knew, this was the 1(b)(7)(C) has ever concluded that they had not effectively (b)(7)(C)Although..ou were the (b)(7)(C)he lnvestlga-ic, found tha.allaway supervisors are allowed the leety to counsel/coach employees either vp ly]V or in wdtfino at any timelThe investloation found o. shibrarestntat7ed:

The licensee testified thaLCou )/b(7)(c)07 (b)(7)(C) diascornonted with thet fmStofas ernloa Indie tt It ws ad us(b)(7)(C)

WHowr he r, th o(b)(7)(C) t (b)(7)(C)

I Of rpt No. substantiated:

N/A RI-20-A008Received 312J2007 Closed 80/200o7 You-vr w bar .te w~p oyediscrimination, In the form of havin jb()C (b)(7)(C)

'=3"Closure Basis The alleger's letter datec 2 r stated that the alleger would prefer that the NRC take no action at this time, This concern Is closedj Monday, November 23, 2009 Page 5 of 8 0! rpt No. substantiated:

N/A RIV-2007-A-0057 Received 4/18/2007 Closed 5/10/2007 employment as J(b)(7)(C) e)(7)(C; itrouse you raishd-safety concerns regarding (b)(7)(C)Closure Basis Based upon the specific details of this case, the NRC staff concluded that you did not suffer a materially adverse action, harmful to the point that could well dissuade a reasonabie worker from making or sunnortlino a charne of.dllnrimiOnsinn the licensee promptlI(b)(7)(C)

¶(b)(7)(C) ,No further NRC action wier5" taken to address this concern.01 rpt No. 4-2007-041 substantiated:

N/A RIV-2007-A-0077 Received 6/412007 Closed 2/6/2008 The afleger tiled a DOL complaint claiming that he wassublected to emnoloymn

()(7)(c)7) = This was submitted in response to thl(b)(7)(C)

[b)lnwhlohe NRC determined that the alieger di not suffer a materlly adverse action, ha ul to the point that could well dissuade a reasonablyworker from making or supporting a rharnR nf dirr.riminptinn I'rnp, mp tho IIr"pnp ..armniI9 (b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C)Closure Basis The alleger settled complaint outside of the NRC's process, before the NRC could formally offer ADR.01 rpt No. 4-20.06.N substantiated:

N RIV-2007-A-0092 Received 8/17/2007 Closed 5/26/2009 You were subjected to employment disc rim lnatk!()()()

I (b)(7)(C) "ou believe this is blatant retaliation for tiling employee concerns.Closure Basis The NRC'saOfflce of Investigations (01) reviewed this concern during an investigation documented as Dl Report No.4-2008-044.

Based on the evidence developed during the Investigation, testimony, and documents reviewed, the allegation that you were subjected to employment discrimination for reaising safety concerns was not substantiated.

T Your technical concerns were addressed by the NRC in letters datedFebruary 21, 2008, and September 16, 2008.j Monday, November 23, 2009 Pagye 6 of 8 01 rpt No. 4-2008-004 substantiated:

N/A RIV-2007-A-0093 Received 8/22/2007 Closed 12/7/2007 You are concerned that you w,,e the subject of discrimination for raising safety issues as dRmon.qtratad by the tact that i(b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C)You stated that examples of the Issues you raised includedb(7(C Yo laIndinated that durin ilhe(~)7(!

1(b)(7)(C)

Ithe e president stated during the meeting that he did not appreciate the condition report. After the planning meeting a supervisor informed you that the plant manager had instructed him to assign you more work. You believed this action was done to ensure that you not have time write to more condition reports.Closure Basis On November 6, the Director, 01 Field Office, Region IV, and I spoke with one of your attorneys and we agreed that the NRC would delay Initiating an investigation since you were attempting to negotiate an agreement outside of.the NRC'sADR process. On Ijbjjj7I 'lou and your attorneys did reach a settlement agreement with AmerenUE.

The settlement was tqraviewed by'tlje NRC's Office of General Counsel for restrictive agreements and found acceptable.

Although the settlement was reached outside of the NfC's ADR process, we can accept such settlements In lieu of an 0l Invsst ntlnn er NRC policy. I've Included a copy of SECY-04-0044 that describes the NRC's policy. On l1(b)(7XC)

Ithe NRC accepted your settlement agreement In lieu of an Investigation and determined that your."isiinatlo cornmplaint (Concern 1) would be closed with no further action.01 rpt No.substantiated:

N/A RIV-2007-A-0096 Received 9/2712007 Closed.halleger asserts that Xxxxxx, his supervis omadehim (b)(7)(C)[ n retaliation for pursuing the facts of the (b)(7)(C)Clas re Bais20, 200S4,he NRC provided you a letter from the Director Office of Enforcement, describing the NRC's actions and bases for those actions regarding your discrimination concern. The NRC did not review this concern because It is an example of an alleged adverse action taken by the licensee In retaliation for having engaged in a protected activity.

As previously discussed with you, the NRC's Office of Investigations was prepared to investigate this and other discriminatory concer at you had made and was working through your attorney to schedule an Interview.

However, lntbM(7 ...the NRC learned of your settlement agreement with th2 licensee and the Investigation was not cbth~ucted.

As the Director, Division of Reactor Projects, advlsedin hi ebruary 29, 2008, ,$.letter, the NRC's policy regarding alternate dispute resolution is such that If the parties agree tcfftediate a 4 discrimination complaint and reach settlement through that process, the NRC will not Initiate an the-co plaint. Since you and your attorney reached a settlement agreement with the licensee b=s 7 (C)further action was taken regarding this concern.Monday, November 23, 2009 01 rpt No. 4-200846F substantiated:

N/A RIV-2008-A-0028 Received 2=22/2008 Closed 10/23/2008 You were sublected to employment discrimination for having self-reported (b)(7)(C)(b){7)(C)Closure Basis Based upon discussions with the NRC Office ei General Counsel, the Region IV Ilegation Review Board aluested an Office of Investiatons asldetr ic whethier the licensee' r ((b)(7)(C) nd/o, wh ether the valid justlitlatlon ford oased unon th(b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C)The licensee believed that the nature of th8i(b)(7)(C)

Ires uch ýthat it would be essential impossble to o the tree0 offl{b)(7)(C)[(b()C he Ilicensee considered whether you couldl come back in oeros(b)ý(7)(CC)(b)(7)(C)'35 The NRC concluded that the licensee had a valid lustificatlon for not (b)(7)(C)(b)(7)(C)

Te t c I(b)(7)(C)

..J The NRC plans to take no further action on this concern and considers this item closed, Mlonday, November 23, 2009Pge8f8 Page 8 of 8