Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Brock, Secretary of Labor, Et Al.
478 U.S. 1011
SCOTUS
1986
Check Treatment

*1 1011 No. 85-1403. Kansas Gas & Brock, Electric Co. v. Secre- tary Labor, of et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. White,

Justice with whom Justice Blackmun and Justice join, O’Connor dissenting.

In case, this the United States Court of for the Appeals Tenth 42 § Circuit has held that 5851(a),1 U. S. C. protects which em- ployees of nuclear facilities against by retaliation their employers for offering assistance to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in out carrying responsibilities its under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,2 prohibits employer an from terminating quality a control inspector because the inspector has filed internal safety com- is, plaints complaints directed not to the Commission, but —that (1985). only employer to the itself. 780 F. 2d 1505 The Tenth although statutory Circuit concluded that the language does not unambiguously eases, include such the statute’s purpose and its legislative history indicate that its purely extension to internal complaints appropriate. Id., is at 1510-1513. In so the holding, of Court note the Appeals took that of Appeals Court for the Fifth had precisely Circuit considered the same statutory and language legislative history and opposite reached the in conclusion Brown & Root, (1984). Donovan, Inc. v. 747 F. 2d 1029 The Tenth Circuit specifically rejected the Fifth Circuit’s in ruling Brown & Root aligned and instead itself with an ruling earlier of the Ninth Cir- 1 provides The statute as follows: employer, including Regulatory] licensee, [Nuclear “No a Commission an applicant license, for a or a Commission contractor or a subcontractor of a may applicant, discharge Commission or any employee licensee or otherwise against any employee respect terms, discriminate compensation, with to his (or conditions, privileges employment or employee any person of the because acting pursuant request employee)— a the to of “(l) commenced, commenced, to be caused or is about to commence or proceeding cause to be commenced a Energy under this Act or the Atomic 1954, amended, proceeding Act of as or a for the administration or enforce- requirement any imposed of ment under Energy this Act or the Atomic Act of 1954, amended; as “(2) testify any or is proceeding or; testified about to in such “(3) participated participate any or or assisted is about to assist or in man- proceeding any a proceeding any in such or other manner in ner in such a inor carry purposes other action to out of Energy the this Act or the Atomic Act of 1954, as 92 2951. amended.” Stat. 2 919, amended, §2011 seq. et 68 Stat. as 42 U. S. C. 1012 Mackowiak Univer- v. complaints are covered. internal *2 that

cuit (1984). Systems, 735 F. 2d 1159 Nuclear sity of should be re Appeals the Courts among This direct conflict to em importance is of both The issue one this by Court. solved installations, it is an issue and of nuclear operators and ployees appel in at least five directly indirectly or either that has surfaced to the deci See, in addition years. in four past the late decisions decision Circuit’s above, cited the Second and the cases sion below (1982), Donovan, 673 F. 2d 61 and Edison Co. v. in Consolidated Trac Caterpillar in Wheeler v. Supreme ruling Court’s the Illinois denied, (1985), 372 cert. 475 Co., E. 2d tor 502, 108 Ill. 2d 485 N. (1986). the issue. certiorari to resolve grant 1122 I would U. S. Attorney Miller, General of ex rel. Iowa 85-1481. No. Secretary Agriculture, al.; Lyng, of et al. Iowa, et v. and Secretary Agriculture, et of al. v. Lyng, No. 85-1818. Attorney Iowa, of et al. Miller, General ex rel. Iowa and Justice Justice White denied. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari Justice O’Connor took no certiorari. Blackmun grant would petitions. decision of these in the consideration or part Michigan v. Essa. Ct. Mich. Certiorari App. No. 85-1514. denied. Burger, joins, whom with Justice O’Connor

Chief Justice dissenting. on p.m. at about 6:20 Novem- began home to burn

Respondent’s department responded, fire a short time the 27, ber 1983. Within fire, An 20 departed. hour and minutes the and extinguished city of the entered the home to con- an investigator later arson The Michigan Ap- the cause. Court of an as to investigation duct a warrant which vio- this was a search without held that peals 315, App. 146 Mich. 380 N. W. 2d Amendment. lated the Fourth Michigan (1985). in v. relied on the concurrence That court 96 (1984) (Stevens, J., in 287, concurring 299 Clifford, 464 S. U. no notice of the inspector gave respondent the since judgment), inspection. Tyler, (1978), we held that the Michigan v. 436 U. S. 499

In when returned investigators was not violated Amendment Fourth fire in order to morning fire the after a building of a to the scene