english
general
electric
argued
april
decided
june
petitioner
english
laboratory
technician
nuclear
facility
operated
respondent
general
electric
company
ge
complained
ge
management
federal
government
several
perceived
violations
standards
facility
including
failure
clean
radioactive
spills
laboratory
frustrated
ge
failure
address
concerns
english
one
occasion
deliberately
failed
clean
work
table
contaminated
uranium
earlier
shift
instead
outlined
contaminated
areas
red
tape
make
conspicuous
days
later
called
supervisor
attention
fact
areas
still
cleaned
shortly
work
halted
inspection
cleaning
laboratory
ge
charged
english
knowing
failure
clean
radioactive
contamination
temporarily
assigned
work
ultimately
discharged
filed
complaint
secretary
labor
alleging
ge
actions
violated
energy
reorganization
act
makes
unlawful
nuclear
industry
employer
retaliate
employee
reporting
safety
violations
although
administrative
law
judge
alj
found
violation
secretary
dismissed
complaint
untimely
limitations
period
provided
subsequently
english
filed
diversity
action
seeking
compensatory
punitive
damages
ge
district
raising
inter
alia
claim
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
rejecting
ge
argument
latter
claim
fell
within
field
nuclear
safety
completely
federal
government
nevertheless
dismissed
claim
ground
conflicted
three
particular
aspects
therefore
appeals
affirmed
held
english
claim
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
federal
law
pp
claim
barred
field
theory
reviewing
relevant
statutory
provisions
legislative
history
pacific
gas
electric
state
energy
resources
conservation
development
concluded
federal
government
occupied
entire
field
nuclear
safety
concerns
expressed
view
congress
intended
government
regulate
radiological
safety
aspects
involved
construction
operation
nuclear
plant
english
action
however
fall
within
boundaries
field
defined
since
state
tort
law
issue
motivated
safety
concerns
see
since
claim
actual
effect
nuclear
safety
decisions
made
build
run
nuclear
facilities
sufficiently
direct
substantial
cf
silkwood
thus
surprising
evidence
necessary
clear
manifest
intent
congress
claims
pp
english
claim
conflict
particular
aspects
first
neither
text
legislative
history
provides
subsection
section
prohibition
employer
retaliation
shall
apply
employee
deliberately
causes
violation
requirement
act
atomic
energy
act
reflects
congressional
desire
preclude
relief
including
state
remedies
deliberately
commits
safety
violation
even
congress
intent
federal
interest
served
recovery
violators
safety
standards
alj
found
english
deliberately
commit
violation
second
absent
specific
suggestion
text
legislative
history
failure
provide
general
authorization
secretary
award
punitive
damages
violations
imply
congressional
intent
bar
state
action
like
english
permits
award
third
expeditious
timeframes
provided
processing
claims
reflect
congressional
decision
order
encourage
reporting
safety
violations
retaliatory
behavior
able
recover
law
time
filing
expired
since
many
retaliatory
incidents
response
safety
complaints
made
federal
government
government
already
aware
safety
violations
even
employees
invoke
remedial
provisions
moreover
suggestion
employees
forgo
options
rely
solely
state
remedies
simply
speculative
basis
rest
finding
pp
blackmun
delivered
opinion
unanimous
travis
payne
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
arthur
schiller
christopher
wright
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
solicitor
general
starr
deputy
solicitor
general
roberts
allen
feldman
steven
mandel
jeffrey
hennemuth
carter
phillips
argued
cause
respondent
brief
rex
lee
benjamin
heineman
philip
lacovara
barton
smith
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
attorney
general
north
carolina
et
al
lacy
thornburg
attorney
general
pro
se
john
brooks
pro
se
donnell
van
noppen
iii
michael
okun
national
conference
state
legislatures
et
al
benna
ruth
solomon
plaintiff
employment
lawyers
association
michael
mcguinness
paul
tobias
nicholas
reynolds
richard
walker
filed
brief
nuclear
management
resources
council
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
government
accountability
project
louis
clark
national
whistleblower
center
stephen
kohn
michael
kohn
justice
blackmun
delivered
opinion
particular
context
case
must
decide
whether
federal
law
cause
action
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
suit
brought
employee
production
facility
employer
arises
actions
employer
allegedly
taken
retaliation
employee
complaints
petitioner
vera
english
employed
laboratory
technician
production
facility
operated
respondent
general
electric
company
ge
wilmington
february
petitioner
complained
ge
management
nuclear
regulatory
commission
nrc
several
perceived
violations
standards
facility
including
failure
clean
radioactive
material
spills
laboratory
frustrated
company
failure
address
concerns
petitioner
one
occasion
deliberately
failed
clean
work
table
contaminated
uranium
solution
preceding
shift
instead
outlined
contaminated
areas
red
tape
make
conspicuous
days
later
petitioner
called
supervisor
attention
areas
still
cleaned
result
work
halted
laboratory
inspected
cleaned
shortly
episode
ge
charged
petitioner
knowing
failure
clean
radioactive
contamination
temporarily
assigned
work
april
ge
management
informed
petitioner
laid
unless
within
days
successfully
bid
position
area
facility
exposed
nuclear
materials
may
petitioner
notified
company
final
decision
affirming
disciplinary
action
taken
petitioner
find
another
position
july
employment
terminated
august
petitioner
filed
complaint
secretary
labor
charging
ge
violating
energy
reorganization
act
added
stat
ed
makes
unlawful
employer
nuclear
industry
discharge
employee
otherwise
discriminate
employee
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
employee
commenced
caused
commenced
commence
cause
commenced
proceeding
act
atomic
energy
act
amended
proceeding
administration
enforcement
requirement
imposed
act
atomic
energy
act
amended
testified
testify
proceeding
assisted
participated
assist
participate
manner
proceeding
action
carry
purposes
act
atomic
energy
act
amended
march
petitioner
filed
diversity
action
ge
district
eastern
district
north
carolina
petitioner
four
counts
raised
two
claims
one
wrongful
discharge
one
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
respect
latter
petitioner
alleged
suffering
severe
depression
emotional
harm
result
ge
extreme
outrageous
conduct
app
petitioner
alleged
addition
transferring
ultimately
firing
ge
removed
laboratory
position
guard
criminal
assigned
degrading
make
work
substitute
assignment
ibid
derided
paranoid
barred
working
controlled
areas
placed
constant
surveillance
working
hours
isolated
even
lunch
periods
conspired
charge
fraudulently
violations
safety
criminal
laws
petitioner
sought
punitive
well
compensatory
damages
although
district
concluded
petitioner
stated
valid
claim
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
north
carolina
law
nonetheless
granted
ge
motion
dismiss
supp
accept
ge
argument
petitioner
claim
fell
within
field
nuclear
safety
field
according
ge
completely
federal
government
held
however
petitioner
claim
conflicted
three
particular
aspects
provision
bars
recovery
section
employee
deliberately
causes
violation
requirement
energy
reorganization
act
atomic
energy
act
absence
provision
generally
authorizing
secretary
award
exemplary
punitive
damages
provisions
requiring
invoking
statute
file
administrative
complaint
within
days
violation
occurs
secretary
resolve
complaint
within
days
filing
see
view
congress
enacted
scheme
foreclose
remedies
violate
requirements
limit
exemplary
damages
awards
nuclear
industry
guarantee
speedy
resolution
allegations
violations
goals
found
incompatible
broader
remedies
petitioner
sought
state
tort
law
appeals
fourth
circuit
affirmed
dismissal
petitioner
emotional
distress
claim
basis
district
reasoning
concluded
congress
intended
foreclose
nuclear
pursuing
state
tort
remedies
stated
belief
district
correctly
identified
applied
relevant
federal
state
law
apparent
conflict
decision
first
circuit
see
norris
lumbermen
mutual
casualty
granted
certiorari
ii
sole
question
resolution
whether
federal
government
petitioner
tort
claim
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
cases
established
state
law
supremacy
clause
art
vi
cl
three
circumstances
first
congress
define
explicitly
extent
enactments
state
law
see
shaw
delta
air
lines
preemption
fundamentally
question
congressional
intent
see
schneidewind
anr
pipeline
congress
made
intent
known
explicit
statutory
language
courts
task
easy
one
second
absence
explicit
statutory
language
state
law
regulates
conduct
field
congress
intended
federal
government
occupy
exclusively
intent
may
inferred
scheme
federal
regulation
pervasive
make
reasonable
inference
congress
left
room
supplement
act
congress
touch
es
field
federal
interest
dominant
federal
system
assumed
preclude
enforcement
state
laws
subject
rice
santa
fe
elevator
although
hesitated
draw
inference
field
supported
federal
statutory
regulatory
schemes
emphasized
field
congress
said
includes
areas
traditionally
occupied
congressional
intent
supersede
state
laws
must
clear
manifest
jones
rath
packing
quoting
rice
santa
fe
elevator
finally
state
law
extent
actually
conflicts
federal
law
thus
found
impossible
private
party
comply
state
federal
requirements
see
florida
lime
avocado
growers
paul
state
law
stands
obstacle
accomplishment
execution
full
purposes
objectives
congress
hines
davidowitz
see
also
maryland
louisiana
undisputed
congress
explicitly
petitioner
tort
action
inserting
specific
language
enactments
governing
nuclear
industry
district
apparently
appeals
rest
decisions
field
rationale
either
rather
considered
actual
tension
petitioner
cause
action
congressional
goals
reflected
respondent
seeks
defend
judgment
lower
courts
rationale
alternative
ground
petitioner
tort
claim
located
within
field
reserved
federal
regulation
field
nuclear
safety
turning
specific
aspects
lower
courts
based
decisions
address
field
question
first
case
occasion
consider
extent
congress
field
nuclear
safety
pacific
gas
electric
state
energy
resources
conservation
development
carefully
analyzed
congressional
enactments
relating
nuclear
industry
order
decide
whether
california
law
conditioned
construction
nuclear
powerplant
state
agency
approval
plant
storage
disposal
facilities
fell
within
field
although
need
repeat
analysis
summarize
briefly
discussion
actions
congress
taken
nuclear
realm
conclusions
drew
actions
use
control
ownership
nuclear
technology
remained
federal
monopoly
atomic
energy
act
stat
amended
et
seq
ed
stemmed
congress
belief
national
interest
served
government
encouraged
private
sector
develop
atomic
energy
peaceful
purposes
program
federal
regulation
licensing
act
implemented
policy
decision
opening
door
private
construction
ownership
operation
commercial
reactors
strict
supervision
atomic
energy
commission
aec
see
duke
power
carolina
environmental
study
group
aec
given
exclusive
authority
license
transfer
delivery
receipt
acquisition
possession
use
nuclear
materials
observed
vermont
yankee
nuclear
power
natural
resources
defense
council
federal
government
prime
area
concern
licensing
context
national
security
public
health
safety
respect
matters
significant
role
contemplated
congress
amended
atomic
energy
act
order
clarify
respective
responsibilities
federal
government
respect
regulation
byproduct
source
special
nuclear
materials
ed
generally
increase
role
amendments
authorized
aec
agreements
state
governors
discontinue
federal
government
regulatory
authority
certain
nuclear
materials
specified
conditions
state
regulatory
programs
adopted
amendment
required
coordinated
compatible
aec
congress
passed
energy
reorganization
act
stat
et
seq
ed
abolished
aec
transferred
regulatory
licensing
authority
nrc
act
also
expanded
number
range
safety
responsibilities
nrc
charge
observed
pacific
gas
nrc
purport
exercise
authority
based
upon
economic
considerations
rather
concerned
primarily
public
health
safety
see
finally
congress
amended
atomic
energy
act
energy
reorganization
act
pub
stat
among
amendments
ed
discussed
encourages
employees
report
safety
violations
provides
mechanism
protecting
retaliation
reviewing
relevant
statutory
provisions
legislative
history
pacific
gas
concluded
federal
government
occupied
entire
field
nuclear
safety
concerns
except
limited
powers
expressly
ceded
although
ultimately
determined
california
statute
issue
fall
within
field
made
clear
view
congress
intended
federal
government
regulate
radiological
safety
aspects
involved
construction
operation
nuclear
plant
present
dispute
respondent
petitioner
disagree
whether
petitioner
tort
action
falls
within
boundaries
field
referred
pacific
gas
respondent
maintains
field
nuclear
safety
large
one
integral
part
specifically
respondent
contends
federal
government
better
able
promote
nuclear
safety
pursue
federal
remedy
whole
area
marked
considered
part
field
identified
pacific
gas
accordingly
respondent
argues
remedies
conduct
covered
congress
decision
federal
government
exclusively
regulate
field
nuclear
safety
petitioner
amicus
curiae
part
contend
petitioner
claim
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
made
clear
pacific
gas
state
laws
supported
nonsafety
rationales
lie
within
field
argue
since
state
tort
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
supported
nonsafety
rationale
namely
state
substantial
interest
protecting
citizens
kind
abuse
petitioner
complain
see
farmer
carpenters
petitioner
cause
action
must
allowed
go
forward
think
arguments
somewhat
wide
mark
respect
respondent
contention
find
clear
manifest
intent
part
congress
enacting
state
tort
laws
traditionally
available
persons
like
petitioner
allege
outrageous
conduct
hands
employer
indeed
acceptance
respondent
argument
require
us
conclude
congress
displaced
state
tort
law
issue
case
also
state
criminal
law
extent
criminal
law
applied
retaliatory
conduct
occurring
site
nuclear
employer
example
employer
retaliate
nuclear
hiring
thugs
assault
employee
job
conduct
literally
covered
respondent
position
imply
state
criminal
law
prohibiting
conduct
within
field
simply
believe
congress
intended
result
instead
think
district
essentially
correct
observing
obviously
bears
relation
field
nuclear
safety
paramount
purpose
protection
employees
see
accordingly
see
basis
respondent
contention
claims
arising
conduct
covered
section
necessarily
included
field
however
accept
petitioner
position
reading
pacific
gas
based
true
holding
case
premised
part
conclusion
california
ban
nuclear
construction
motivated
safety
concerns
indeed
majority
suggested
state
moratorium
nuclear
construction
grounded
safety
concerns
falls
squarely
within
prohibited
field
words
defined
field
part
reference
motivation
behind
state
law
approach
defining
field
support
text
amendments
atomic
energy
act
provided
among
things
othing
section
shall
construed
affect
authority
state
local
agency
regulate
activities
purposes
protection
radiation
hazards
ed
emphasis
added
suggest
finding
safety
motivation
necessary
place
state
law
within
field
contrary
took
great
pains
make
clear
state
regulation
matters
directly
affecting
radiological
safety
construction
operation
even
enacted
nonsafety
concerns
nevertheless
infringe
upon
nrc
exclusive
authority
thus
even
suggested
part
field
defined
reference
purpose
state
law
question
made
clear
another
part
field
defined
state
law
actual
effect
nuclear
safety
clear
state
tort
law
issue
motivated
safety
concerns
former
portion
field
argument
relevant
real
issue
whether
petitioner
tort
claim
related
radiological
safety
aspects
involved
operation
nuclear
facility
see
falls
within
field
addressing
issue
must
bear
mind
every
state
law
remote
way
may
affect
nuclear
safety
decisions
made
build
run
nuclear
facilities
said
fall
within
field
doubt
instance
application
state
minimum
wage
child
labor
laws
employees
nuclear
facilities
even
though
laws
said
affect
tangentially
resource
allocation
decisions
might
bearing
radiological
safety
instead
state
law
fall
within
zone
must
direct
substantial
effect
decisions
made
build
operate
nuclear
facilities
concerning
radiological
safety
levels
recognize
claim
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
issue
may
effect
decisions
liability
claims
like
petitioner
attach
additional
consequences
retaliatory
conduct
employers
employers
find
retaliation
costly
forced
deal
complaints
means
including
altering
radiological
safety
policies
nevertheless
believe
effect
neither
direct
substantial
enough
place
petitioner
claim
field
result
strongly
suggested
decision
silkwood
held
claim
punitive
damages
state
tort
action
arising
escape
plutonium
federally
licensed
nuclear
facility
fall
within
field
discussed
pacific
gas
reached
result
notwithstanding
tension
conclusion
radiological
safety
regulation
exclusive
concern
federal
law
conclusion
state
may
nevertheless
award
damages
including
punitive
damages
based
law
liability
governing
unsafe
working
conditions
although
decision
silkwood
based
substantial
part
legislative
history
suggesting
congress
intend
include
field
state
tort
remedies
injuries
see
think
odd
irrational
conclude
congress
intended
include
tort
actions
stemming
retaliation
field
intended
include
tort
actions
stemming
radiation
damage
suffered
result
actual
safety
violations
potential
liability
kind
claim
issue
silkwood
affect
radiological
safety
decisions
directly
potential
liability
kind
claim
petitioner
raises
tort
claim
silkwood
attaches
additional
consequences
safety
violations
rather
employer
conduct
merely
arises
allegations
safety
violations
moreover
related
prospect
compensatory
punitive
damages
injuries
undoubtedly
affect
nuclear
employers
primary
decisions
radiological
safety
construction
operation
nuclear
power
facilities
far
substantially
liability
kind
claim
petitioner
asserts
thus
surprising
find
evidence
clear
manifest
intent
part
congress
tort
claims
like
petitioner
cf
goodyear
atomic
miller
increased
workers
compensation
award
injury
caused
safety
violation
nuclear
facility
incidental
regulatory
pressure
congress
finds
acceptable
accordingly
conclude
petitioner
claim
lie
within
field
nuclear
safety
turn
question
whether
lower
courts
concluded
petitioner
claim
conflicts
particular
aspects
face
section
grant
federal
administrative
remedy
employees
one
industry
one
type
employer
discrimination
retaliation
ordinarily
mere
existence
federal
regulatory
enforcement
scheme
even
one
detailed
imply
state
remedies
observed
undoubtedly
every
subject
merits
congressional
legislation
definition
subject
national
concern
mean
however
every
federal
statute
ousts
related
state
law
instead
must
look
special
features
warranting
hillsborough
county
automated
medical
laboratories
district
identified
three
special
features
believed
incompatible
petitioner
claim
district
relied
first
provides
subsection
section
prohibition
employer
retaliation
shall
apply
employee
deliberately
causes
violation
requirement
act
atomic
energy
act
according
district
respondent
section
reflects
congressional
desire
preclude
relief
including
state
remedies
deliberately
commits
safety
violation
referred
permitting
claim
based
retaliation
reasoned
frustrate
congressional
objective
agree
initial
matter
note
text
specifically
limits
applicability
remedy
provided
suggest
bars
tort
actions
legislative
history
reveal
clear
congressional
purpose
supplant
causes
action
might
afford
broader
relief
indeed
explanation
statute
remedial
limitations
committee
report
statement
employees
deliberately
violate
requirements
denied
protection
order
avoid
abuse
protection
afforded
section
emphasis
added
event
even
district
respondent
correct
concluding
congress
wanted
deliberately
commit
violations
defined
denied
remedies
employer
retaliation
federal
interest
served
state
law
extent
afforded
recovery
violators
see
norris
lumbermen
mutual
casualty
instant
case
alj
found
petitioner
deliberately
committed
safety
violation
within
meaning
app
pet
cert
neither
secretary
lower
courts
suggested
otherwise
thus
barring
petitioner
tort
action
even
serve
federal
interest
lower
courts
respondent
gleaned
reading
section
district
also
relied
absence
general
authorization
secretary
award
exemplary
damages
employers
engage
retaliatory
conduct
district
concluded
respondent
argues
absence
implies
congressional
intent
bar
state
action
like
petitioner
permits
award
district
put
reflects
informed
judgment
congress
circumstances
nuclear
whistler
blower
receive
punitive
damages
fired
discriminated
safety
complaints
believe
district
respondent
read
much
congress
decision
authorize
exemplary
damages
violations
first
even
respect
actions
brought
district
incorrect
stating
circumstances
nuclear
receive
punitive
damages
authorizes
district
award
exemplary
damages
enforcement
proceedings
brought
secretary
moreover
importantly
think
district
failed
follow
teaching
rdinarily
state
causes
action
solely
impose
liability
authorized
federal
law
california
arc
america
absent
specific
suggestion
text
legislative
history
unable
find
conclude
congress
intended
state
actions
permit
recovery
exemplary
damages
finally
address
district
holding
expeditious
timeframes
provided
congress
processing
claims
reflect
congressional
decision
able
recover
law
time
filing
expired
district
reasoned
respondent
agrees
remedy
available
time
filing
complaint
run
less
incentive
bring
complaint
result
argument
runs
federal
regulatory
agencies
remain
unaware
safety
violations
retaliatory
behavior
thus
unable
ensure
radiological
safety
nuclear
facilities
deny
force
argument
believe
problem
great
respondent
suggests
first
many
retaliatory
incidents
come
response
safety
complaints
employees
register
federal
regulatory
agencies
federal
government
thus
already
aware
safety
violations
whether
employee
invokes
remedial
provisions
also
sure
respondent
seems
employees
forgo
options
rely
solely
state
remedies
retaliation
prospect
simply
speculative
basis
rest
finding
observed
repeatedly
ordinarily
implied
absent
actual
conflict
see
savage
jones
teaching
decisions
enjoin
seeking
conflicts
state
federal
regulation
none
clearly
exists
huron
portland
cement
detroit
iii
conclude
petitioner
claim
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
fall
within
field
nuclear
safety
field
defined
prior
cases
conflict
particular
aspect
contrary
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
employee
believes
discharged
otherwise
discriminated
violation
statute
may
file
complaint
secretary
labor
within
days
violation
occurs
secretary
must
investigate
alleged
violation
hold
public
hearing
within
days
receiving
complaint
issue
order
either
provides
denies
relief
violation
found
secretary
may
order
reinstatement
backpay
award
compensatory
damages
require
violator
pay
employee
costs
attorney
fees
person
adversely
affected
order
secretary
may
obtain
judicial
review
appropriate
appeals
either
secretary
complainant
may
seek
enforcement
secretary
order
district
appeals
fourth
circuit
affirmed
decision
remanded
case
consideration
petitioner
separate
claim
subjected
continuing
course
retaliatory
harassment
may
disciplinary
decision
english
whitfield
upon
remand
alj
concluded
claim
also
dismissed
time
barred
alj
recommended
decision
issue
still
pending
secretary
district
ruled
petitioner
made
claim
state
law
wrongful
discharge
petitioner
appealed
ruling
claim
us
referring
three
categories
taken
mean
rigidly
distinct
indeed
field
may
understood
species
conflict
state
law
falls
within
field
conflicts
congress
intent
either
express
plainly
implied
exclude
state
regulation
nevertheless
previously
adverted
framework
invoke
apply
regard
note
enforcement
implementation
entrusted
congress
nrc
body
primarily
responsible
nuclear
safety
regulation
department
labor
two
justices
thought
since
california
statute
issue
pacific
gas
motivated
safety
concerns
reason
majority
discuss
portion
field
argument
either
see
whether
suggestion
majority
pacific
gas
legislative
purpose
relevant
definition
field
part
holding
case
issue
us
today
discussed
even
safety
motivation
relevant
petitioner
broad
suggestion
safety
motivation
necessary
finding
particular
state
law
falls
within
occupied
field
lacks
merit
respondent
relies
see
brief
respondent
decisions
construing
effect
national
labor
relations
act
nlra
et
argue
petitioner
claim
falls
within
field
regard
reliance
misplaced
begin
nlra
unlike
statutes
governing
field
comprehensively
deals
relations
inception
organizational
activity
negotiation
agreement
moreover
special
factors
support
conclusion
state
labor
relations
law
warranted
specifically
congress
perception
nlra
needed
state
legislatures
courts
unable
provide
informed
coherent
labor
policy
see
motor
coach
employees
lockridge