Contractor Employee Protection Program (10 CFR Part 708)

On December 28, 2015, OHA denied an Appeal involving a Complaint filed by Krishnan Balasubramanian (Balasubramanian) against Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS), management and operating contractor for DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program and its governing regulations set forth at 10 CFR Part 708.  Following Balasubramanian’s third request for a health-related postponement of his Part 708 hearing, an OHA Administrative Judge dismissed Balasubramanian’s Complaint without prejudice, subject to Balasubramanian refiling his Complaint with OHA by June 1, 2015. On May 29, 2015, Balasubramanian filed a fourth request for a health-related postponement, without refiling his Complaint. The Administrative Judge noted that the medical documentation submitted by Balasubramanian would normally have been sufficient to conclude that medical necessity warranted granting the requested postponement. However, in this case, Balasubramanian had filed a state court action against LLNS following the earlier dismissal of his Part 708 Complaint and, in light of his ability to commence a state court litigation, the Administrative Judge saw no basis to conclude that Balasubramanian had been unable to refile his Part 708 Complaint by the June 1st deadline. On review, OHA affirmed the decision, noting that the state court filing and related correspondence evidenced Balasubramanian’s willingness and capability to participate in work-related communications and proceedings, which his physician had certified he needed to be freed from completely. Consequently, Balasubramanian’s Appeal was denied. OHA Case No. WBA-14-0001 

On December 31, 2015, OHA denied an Appeal involving a Complaint filed by Sandra Black against Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC (SRNS) under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 CFR Part 708. In her Complaint, Black alleged SRNS terminated her for engaging in protected activities, specifically citing her participation in a Government Accountability Office review as a protected disclosure. An OHA Attorney-Investigator dismissed Black’s Complaint because she also filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor based on “the same facts” as alleged in the Part 708 complaint. On review, OHA affirmed the finding of the OHA Attorney-Investigator that OHA lacked jurisdiction over Black’s complaint pursuant to 10 CFR §§ 708.15(c), (d) and 708.17(c)(3). Consequently, OHA denied Black’s Appeal. OHA Case No. WBA-15-0009