17

I read that here in this article:

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    Skeptical, even if it were true, would it be a strong argument for infering some conclusion? What if it were true that nothing was wrong with that claim, if any? Yes, inference is just a big word that means a conclusion or judgement, but if you infer that something has to be true, than you have to demonstrate it, and phony reason is not enough.
    – Carlo Alterego
    Dec 27, 2012 at 18:00
  • I was recently at a private screening of the upcoming documentary by Dr. David Kennedy entitled "Fluoridegate: An American Tragedy", to be released some time in 2013, in which Dr. Marcus and one of his attorneys are interviewed on this very issue.
    – Flimzy
    Dec 28, 2012 at 2:51
  • 3
    Even according to the references he wasn't the EPA's Chief Toxicologist as the headline claims but not the body quote.
    – matt_black
    Dec 29, 2012 at 23:40

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
23

Reference - Marcus v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 92-TSC-5 (ALJ Dec. 3, 1992)

Contentions of The Parties

Dr. William Marcus (Complainant) alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and later terminated because of a memo he drafted and released that warned of potential harm from the use of fluoride, contrary to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's official position concerning the safety of fluoride use.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) (Respondent) contends that it terminated Dr. Marcus after an investigation by the Inspector General's office, which alleged that Dr. Marcus was (1) using official information for private gain; (2) engaging in private business activities that resulted in or created the appearance of a conflict of interest; (3) failing to follow established leave procedures; and (4) failing to obtain administrative approval for outside employment. E.P.A. contends that while it was aware of Dr. Marcus' controversial memo, it was not a factor in the decision to terminate Dr. Marcus, employment.

The judge ruled in favour of Dr Marcus:

Because three of the four charges against Dr. Marcus are not supportable in fact or law and therefore do not support the termination decision; and because no other E.P.A. employee who committed violations similar to those committed by Dr. Marcus was fired from her or his employment at E.P.A. and considering the treatment Dr. Marcus received from his supervisors before and after he issued his fluoride memo, I conclude that the reasons given for Dr. Marcus, firing were a pretext and that his employment was terminated because he publicly questioned and opposed E.P.A.'s fluoride policy. This action by the agency constitutes a wrongful termination of Dr. Marcus, employment under applicable law.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    Wow. Very interesting.
    – Kenshin
    Dec 28, 2012 at 2:29
  • 13
    This does of course not mean that Dr. Marcus' claims made in the memo on the safety of fluoride are correct. It merely means that Dr. Marcus voicing an opinion opposing the E.P.A.'s policy is not sufficient justification for employment termination... the judges were judging labor law only.
    – DevSolar
    May 15, 2018 at 8:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .