What the record says

2. Referral section recovered — two entries, with different consequences · Batch 22

Source account

The actual XIII B 11 section contains Mandreger and Smith. It is not a complete census of psychiatric referrals: other pertinent entries appear elsewhere in the digest. Mandreger v. Detroit Edison, 88-ERA-17, Secretary 30 March 1994: the digest distinguishes an EAP referral from its consequences. A psychologist found a mental disorder; the worker could not return to the plant, exhausted leave, and later received work with reduced overtime and advancement. Those consequences were adverse action. Engineering role and the precise diagnosis remain unverified; adverse action alone does not establish retaliation. Smith v. Esicorp, 93-ERA-16, Secretary 13 March 1996: a compelled doctor visit was adverse but not necessarily retaliatory. The digest reports substantial support for medical attention and a possible safety risk. The worker alleged suppression of scaffolding concerns but had been assigned responsibility for fixing the scaffolding. This is a medical-referral comparison, not evidence of a psychiatric diagnosis or an engineering role. Source: EDIG13, XIII B 11. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/PUBLIC/WHISTLEBLOWER/REFERENCES/REFERENCE_WORKS/EDIG13