Re: NRC Finding of Employment Discrimination

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

Note the basis for the finding of discrimination, as stated in the notice:

 " ...In determining whether a hostile work environment existed, the
NRC relied heavily on the MSPB finding in this area. The MSPB

[[Page 81905]]

finding indicates that based on the testimony of Dr. Dunkman and his
demeanor during testimony, the Administrative Judge (AJ) was
persuaded that he was extremely upset with the appellant for having
his study temporarily suspended...."

Note that the finding  is based on the "demeanor" of her supervisor, not just on
the written record.  This supervisor seems to have created the appearance of
discrimination, and convinced the judge that his case was an after the fact
justification for actions he took in anger.  Appearances are important.

I've learned, the hard way:

(1) While employees may have ulterior motives for expressing safety concerns,
virtually every concern has some element of merit.  It's important to look for
this and take it seriously.

(2) Employee litigation is generally not just about money.  The employee has the
perception, right or wrong, that he's been treated unfairly.  These cases can
usually be prevented by showing concern and making a good faith effort to resolve
the issue.  This is not being paranoid, it's good management.

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com

Jim Muckerheide wrote:

> William V Lipton wrote:
> >
> >  This illustrates the importance of carefully reviewing all
> > safety concerns from your employees and avoiding even the appearance of
> > discrimination.
>
> Neither seem at issue here. The findings are of actual "intolerable working
> conditions," "threats of termination," "isolation," and on.  Nothing about
> "reviewing safety concerns" (whether or not valid).
>
> We can't get paranoid about "appearances" of discrimination. Fortunately, the
> legal/regulatory policies have become much more substantial in dealing with
> actual vs. "perceptual" issues of things like "discrimination," including the
> actual record of complaints and statements objecting to actions.
>
> Now if we could equivalently deal with the false "perceptions" being fostered
> that any dose is harmful, we could solve the radiation-phobia problem.  Can we
> get NCRP held to that standard?
>
> Regards, Jim
> muckerheide@mediaone.net
> ========================
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html