Duncan

MEMORANDUM **

Mark Duncan seeks review of the dismissal of his complaint alleging that his employer disciplined and discharged him in retaliation for “whistleblowing.” He contends that he did not receive a fair hearing and that he proved his claims of wrongful retaliation and termination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (c)(1), and we affirm.

DISCUSSION

The Clean Air Act protects “whistle-blowing” and prohibits employers from discharging or discriminating against an employee for engaging in such protected activity. 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (a). Duncan contends that he was disciplined, harassed, and eventually discharged from his employment because he provided “confidential information” to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that Duncan satisfied his prima facie case “consisting of a showing that he ... engaged in protected conduct, that the employer was aware of that conduct, and that the employer took some adverse action against the employee.” The ALJ dismissed Duncan’s complaint, however, based on ad *823 verse credibility determinations and evidence indicating that Duncan “engaged in an almost relentless series of acts…