HOWELL – The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a lawsuit against Brocon Petroleum Inc., Route 33, and its president, Richard Kohler, on behalf of a former employee of the company.
That employee was allegedly terminated in violation of the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act.
According to the U.S Department of Labor, Office of Public Affairs, the complaint alleges that Brocon Petroleum fired an employee in retaliation for the employee engaging in a protected activity.
The department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted an inspection of the employer’s work site in response to an anonymous complaint about safety practices at the work site. Later that day the defendants fired the complainant because they believed the complainant had contacted OSHA, according to a press release from the Department of Labor.
The complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court by Elaine L. Chao, secretary of labor for the Department of Labor when, after an investigation, the secretary deemed the complaint justifiable, according to Leni Fortson, a spokesperson for the department.
Messages left for Richard Kohler at the offices of Brocon Petroleum were not returned.
Fortson said the department has no attorney listed for Brocon Petroleum.
According to the lawsuit, on Aug. 5, 2005, Scott Shevlin, who until that date had been an employee of Brocon Petroleum, filed a complaint about the company with the Department of Labor.
According to the department’s lawsuit against the firm, “on or about Aug. 5, 2005, [Brocon Petroleum] discharged employee Scott Shevlin because he engaged in activity protected by section 11c of the OSH Act and [Brocon Petroleum has] failed and refused and continue[s] to fail and refuse to reinstate Scott Shevlin to his former or substantially equivalent position of employment and have failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to pay wages and other employee benefits.”
According to Fortson, “every employee has a right to raise any safety or health issue with their employer and/or a government agency without fear of retribution or retaliation or termination. In this case the secretary deemed the case had merit and filed a complaint in federal court.”
She said she could not provide details of the specific complaint Shevlin lodged against the company.
The Department of Labor’s lawsuit seeks to reinstate Shevlin, secure compensatory damages, lost back pay and punitive damages, and require the company to post a notice in a prominent place for 60 days that explains employee rights under Section 11c of the OSH Act.
The OSHAct is designed to regulate employment conditions relating to occupational safety and health and to achieve safer and more healthful workplaces throughout the nation, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s InternetWeb site.
The OSH Act, “provides for a wide range of substantive and procedural rights for employees and representatives of employees.”
According to the Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program’s Internet Web site, “To help ensure that employees are, in fact, free to participate in safety and health activities, Section 11c of the OSH Act prohibits any person fromdischarging, or in any manner discriminating against, any employee because the employee has exercised rights under the OSHAct.”
These rights, according to theWeb site, include complaining to OSHAand seeking an OSHA inspection, participating in an OSHA inspection and participating or testifying in any proceeding related to an OSHA inspection.
According to the Whistleblower Protection Program Web site, a person filing a complaint of discrimination or retaliation will be “required to show that he or she engaged in protected activity, the employer knew about that activity, the employer subjected himor her to adverse employment action, and the protected activity contributed to the adverse action. Adverse employment action is generally defined as a material change in the terms or conditions of employment, depending upon the circumstances of the case discrimination can include the following: firing or laying off, blacklisting, demoting, denying overtime or promotion, disciplining, denial of benefits, failure to hire or rehire, intimidation, reassignment affecting prospects for promotion and reducing pay or hours.”
In order to protect workers the Web site explains that OSHA conducts an indepth interview with each complainant to determine the need for an investigation. If the evidence supports the worker’s claim of discrimination, OSHA will ask the employer to restore the worker’s job, earnings and benefits. If the employer objects, OSHA may take the employer to court to seek relief for the worker, which is what is happening in the current case against Brocon Petroleum.

