Patrick Crosby v. United States Department of Labor Hughes Aircraft Company

53 F.3d 338 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Patrick CROSBY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Hughes Aircraft Company, Respondents, No. 93-70834. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 7, 1995. Decided April 20, 1995. Before: McKAY, * REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Patrick Crosby appeals the Secretary of Labor's adoption of an administrative law judge's recommended decision and order to the effect that Crosby was not discriminated against by his former employer, Hughes Aircraft Company, in violation of the whistleblower provisions of various federal environmental statutes. 1 The Secretary ruled that Crosby had not shown that Hughes had terminated him for protected rather than non-discriminatory business reasons. We deny the petition. 3 If an employee has made out a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, the burden of production shifts to the employer to show that it had…