Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; March 18, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Syed Hasan appeals the dismissal of five discrimination claims against Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) under the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), specifically 42 U.S.C. § 5851, which prohibits discrimination against employees raising concerns about nuclear regulatory violations. The Department of Labor handles these claims, and its Administrative Review Board (Board) affirmed the dismissal of Hasan's complaints.
In 1998, ComEd contracted Estes Group to supply temporary workers for its nuclear plant in LaSalle County, Illinois, where Hasan, a structural engineer, began work in November 1998. In January 1999, Hasan identified a safety issue regarding pipe support connections in Unit 2, reporting it first verbally and then in writing. ComEd addressed the concern, involving Hasan in the corrective process.
After learning that his tenure and that of his colleagues would end on March 26, 1999, Hasan filed a complaint with OSHA, alleging termination linked to his safety report. OSHA's investigation deemed the complaint meritless, and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed it for lack of evidence connecting his termination to the safety concern. Hasan's appeal to the Board upheld the ALJ's findings.
Following the successful restart of Unit 2 on April 11, 1999, ComEd requested specific employees from Estes Group, claiming Hasan was unqualified for the positions. While his first complaint was pending, Hasan filed a second complaint with OSHA in October 1999, alleging further discrimination based on his earlier safety concern, which OSHA also found meritless, leading him to seek ALJ review.
Defendants sought dismissal of Hasan's complaints regarding discriminatory failure-to-hire, with an ALJ concluding without a hearing that Hasan failed to allege sufficient facts to support his claims. The Board agreed, noting Hasan did not show any available positions for which he was qualified, despite submitting applications to ComEd and Estes from September to November 1999, with no responses from either company. Hasan later filed multiple complaints with OSHA, alleging ComEd refused to hire him due to a safety warning he raised, but OSHA found these claims lacked merit and referred them to an ALJ. The ALJ found Hasan did not establish a prima facie case of failure-to-hire and recommended dismissal, a decision upheld by the Board.
On appeal, Hasan argued the Board erred in finding no link between his safety concern and his termination, claiming defendants’ witnesses lied without providing evidence of deceit. The Board’s dismissal was deemed proper as Hasan did not demonstrate that his safety concern was a contributing factor in his termination. ComEd provided substantial evidence that his termination was based on the temporary nature of his employment, linked to the completion of the Unit 2 project, and confirmed by supervisor testimony regarding the lack of work. Consequently, the Board's dismissal was supported by substantial evidence, affirming that ComEd would have terminated Hasan regardless of his safety complaint.
Hasan failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation regarding his termination, as ComEd provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason: the completion of the project for which he was hired. The burden then shifted to Hasan to prove that this reason was a pretext, but he did not present convincing evidence to challenge ComEd’s assertion. Consequently, substantial evidence supported the Board’s dismissal of his complaint. Regarding his failure-to-hire claim, Hasan contended that the Board wrongly accepted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision to deny his request for full discovery before dismissing his additional complaints. Although his brief was unclear, he appeared to argue for access to defendants’ employment records to investigate hiring practices. The ALJ determined that Hasan's complaint did not substantiate a failure-to-hire claim and viewed his discovery request as an unproductive “fishing expedition” lacking specificity. Hasan had previously received extensive discovery in earlier complaints and failed to demonstrate that new information would emerge from his latest request. As a result, the Board’s acceptance of the ALJ’s decision to deny further discovery was justified, leading to the affirmation of the Board's judgment. Additionally, Exelon Generation Corporation, L.L.C. has intervened in this case, and Estes Group, Inc. joined the appeal, though the court stayed proceedings concerning Estes Group as of January 25, 2002.
