Public Records Office / Public Library
Research register
Patrickson: safety reports, an evaluation, and a reversed ruling
A system engineer reported hazards to the NRC and OSHA, then underwent a psychological evaluation. The report found no significant pathology. His retaliation litigation ended against him on review; the referral-specific reasoning remains an open research question.
Read each occurrence in context. Evidence labels below are the labels recorded by the source edition; importing a row does not independently verify it.
Account 1
3.2 Patrickson v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, 2003-ERA-22 — facts VERIFIED from the ALJ record; final outcome: retaliation NOT established (ARB reversed ALJ; Second Circuit affirmance per addendum, unverified by me) · Batch 21
- Source account
- Primary read: ALJ Recommended Decision and Order, 3 Mar 2005, pp. 1–about 31 of the file: https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/entergydiscriminationsuit.pdf. ARB final decision, ARB Nos. 05-069 and 05-070, 31 Aug 2007: NOT read (oalj.dol.gov blocks automated access); only DOL digest summaries seen: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/PUBLIC/ARB/REFERENCES/CASELISTS/08_2007 1. Person/role: Carl R. Patrickson, engineer, James A. FitzPatrick plant (NY Power Authority, then Entergy from Nov 2000). Maintenance engineer 1989; field engineer 1991–2000 (monitoring plant modifications); system engineering "assistant engineer" from May 2000, monitoring systems for proper operation and maintenance. Engineering role VERIFIED. Safety responsibility is system monitoring and problem reporting; he is not a titled safety engineer. 2. Concern: emergency service water pump room ventilation: closed fire dampers could let pump motors overheat and fail in a fire. Reported to NRC 1997 (RI-1997-A-0126) and again 31 Mar 2003 (RI-2003-A-0053); also six OSHA-type items reported to the ethics line (Jun 2002) and OSHA (13 Jan 2003). OSHA inspected in Mar 2003. 3. Label: L3 plus L2. For-cause drug/alcohol test and psychological evaluation via the employer's EAP vendor (EMAX). Employer's descriptors: "aberrant behavior", "out of character", "excited emotional state". The general manager testified: "I wouldn't say screaming, you know, crazy". His worst-case rationale: someone "acting crazed" might injure someone or tamper with the plant. No diagnosis. Clinical output (L1-adjacent, but not a diagnosis): the EMAX report found "no significant pathologies", recommended short-term stress counselling and at least six months' intensified behavioural observation; the report was written by the EMAX vice-president, but a local psychologist, Dr. Joel Richman, saw him. 4. Initiator and grounds: general manager O'Grady (email 26 Mar), then a 27 Mar meeting of the HR director Zimmerman, O'Grady, engineering director Limpias and site VP Sullivan, plus a call to Entergy Nuclear Northeast in White Plains. Cited policy: AP 11.01 fitness-for-duty program, derived from 10 CFR Part 26. Sullivan said he feared Patrickson "could do harm to himself" or equipment, and admitted he knew of no past harm to equipment. 5. Sequence: 1996–97 disputed evaluations and 1997 NRC report; Jun 2002 ethics-line report; 13 Jan 2003 OSHA letter report; 15 Jan and 25 Feb random tests; 19 Mar OSHA citation signed (minor fine on one item); 24 Mar he shows HR the OSHA findings; 25/26 Mar hallway encounter; 27 Mar email and for-cause referral; leave; 31 Mar second NRC report; 1–3 Apr negative drug test, evaluation, report; 22 Apr his OSHA retaliation complaint; 28 Apr return under agreement; 2003 performance plan; 20 Nov termination. 6. Contrary and independent evidence: OSHA's regional administrator (17 Jul 2003) found referral legitimate because of "out of the ordinary behavior". The HR director described him as quiet and calm, which supports both "out of character" and "no history of instability". Fewer than five for-cause tests since 2000 at the plant. Patrickson testified he knew no one else kept on 31 days' leave after a negative test or put under six months' observation; Zimmerman said it was the first such programme Entergy had heard of. Patrickson told HR he "kind of used the NRC thing as a shield" for a year or two (Zimmerman's memo; Patrickson called "spiteful" too strong). O'Grady admitted knowing of the OSHA complaint but testified the ventilation issue was never brought to him; Patrickson said his 2002 "Short List" (which included ventilation) was emailed to O'Grady, though he admitted never discussing it with him. Unresolved conflict about who knew what. 7. Findings: OSHA 17 Jul 2003: no violation. ALJ 3 Mar 2005: finding on the evaluation NOT read. DOL's own ARB digest says the ALJ found the performance-plan meetings were adverse action and found disparate treatment, and that the ARB reversed both and found no pretext for the discharge. That implies the discharge and plan claims were not sustained; it does not say how the evaluation referral was decided. 8. Consequences and hazard: 31 days' paid leave, return-to-work conditions (stress counselling, six months' observation), then discharge on 20 Nov 2003. Fate of hazard: NRC wrote (28 Apr 2003) that absent new information it had no basis to revise its earlier conclusion that the problems were valid but adequately addressed. Patrickson testified permanent modifications were cancelled. ALJ record shows a 2003 mod list marking two as cancelled. NOT resolved here; no independent check of the 2003 fire analysis. 9. Griffin test: observed behaviour = a raised-voice hallway exchange and an all-caps email, in a man others call calm. The test is met on the employer's account and contested on his. The independent clinician found nothing pathological. Neither fact settles motive. 10. Uncertainty / next source: the ARB decision text (05_069.ERAP; try mirror or Westlaw); ALJ conclusions section; whether the evaluation was held adverse; later NRC discrimination findings under allegation RI-2003-A-0053. Status: VERIFIED for facts quoted from the ALJ record. Final adjudicated outcome is against the retaliation claim; whether any reviewing body specifically ruled on the evaluation referral remains unread. The case stays in the register as a contrary/qualified row: independent clinician found no pathology, yet conditions were imposed, and reviewers did not find retaliation.
Account 2
1. Patrickson — appeal result confirmed in official register, referral ruling still open · Batch 22
- Source account
- Key: 2003-US-NY-PATRICKSON. DOL's 2002–2003 ERA caselist identifies ALJ 2003-ERA-22; recommended decision 3 March 2005; ARB final decision 31 August 2007; and Second Circuit No. 07-4574, 18 December 2008, petition for review denied. The official indexed register confirms the appeal result independently of the earlier addendum. Full circuit decision bytes were not retrieved in this pass. Status: VERIFIED (official register/indexed record) for procedural result; primary judgment text still outstanding. Do not promote this to primary judgment read. The DOL adverse-action digest confirms the Board rejected the ALJ's treatment of performance-plan meetings and found no proven pretext. That does not independently resolve the evaluation referral. The earlier general claim that reviewers found no retaliation must not be restated as a specific finding that the psychological referral was justified. Sources: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/PUBLIC/WHISTLEBLOWER/REFERENCES/CASELISTS/ERALIST8 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/PUBLIC/ARB/REFERENCES/CASELISTS/08_2007
Linked patterns
Review-stage specificity →Linked corrections
No separately indexed correction linked to this key. Review the source wording and later batches before relying on an earlier assertion.
Reference and provenance
2003-US-NY-PATRICKSON