MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
After considering Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Complainant’s opposition and the oral arguments, the Hearing Officer finds and concludes that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
- The complaint fails to state a claim upon which the requested relief may be granted
- The claims of this complaint are not within the jurisdiction of the Office of Compliance as conferred on it by Congress
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 2 use. 1301,
Congress in enacting the CAA did not extend the remedies and protection afforded Congressional employees under Title II, Part A of the CAA, §201, et seq., 2 USC 1311, 109 Stat. 7, to Congressional employees who, like complainant Duncan, had other protections and similar remedies under Title II, Part C of the CAA, §215, et seq., 2 USC 1341, 109 Stat. 16.
Mr. Duncan does not. allege any facts which bring him within Congressional employee groups in Part A of the CAA. Because he seeks Part A remedies without alleging Part A status, the relief requested by Mr. Duncan cannot be granted by the Office of Compliance.
Mr. Duncan’s remedies lie, if any, under Part C of the CAA relating to Congressional employees who allege OSHA violations The remedies include an order to cure the OSHA violation as well as remedies for discrimination by employers who violate OSHA and for denial of Worker’s Compensation. By incorporating the 1970 enactment of OSHA, CAA, §215{a) extended to persons like Mr. Duncan remedies similar to those which he now asks under Part A of the CAA
In accord with the law applicable to motions to dismiss the Hearing Officer takes the allegations of the complaint as facts well-pleaded and finds, inter alia, that:
