On March 9, 2015, OHA denied an Appeal of the dismissal of a complaint filed by Anthony T. Rivera (Rivera) 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 (10 CFR Part 708). In his complaint, Rivera alleges that he was terminated from his position with LLNS because he had made a series of disclosures concerning alleged fraud, abuse of authority, gross waste of funds, health and safety, and gross mismanagement.
The DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program was established to safeguard public and employee health and safety, ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and prevent fraud, mismanagement, waste and abuse at DOE’s government-owned, contractor-operated facilities. 57 Fed. Reg. 7533 (March 3, 1992). Its primary purposes are to encourage contractor employees to disclose information which they believe exhibits unsafe, illegal, fraudulent, or wasteful practices, and to protect those “whistleblowers” from consequential reprisals by their employers.
On November 3, 2014, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying a jurisdictional appeal filed by Dr. Paul M. Cole, Ph.D (Dr. Cole), a former Oak Ridge Institute for Science Education (ORISE) fellow at the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. Dr. Cole appealed the Oak Ridge Office’s (ORO) Diversity Programs and Employee Concerns Managers September 30, 2014, dismissal of a whistleblower complaint that he filed under 10 C.F.R.
On September 11, 2014, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying Mr. Tony Quillen’s Appeal of the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office’s (PPPO) dismissal of his whistleblower complaint for lack of jurisdiction or other good cause. The OHA found that PPPO had correctly and reasonably determined that a settlement agreement between a union and his employer had provided Mr. Quillen with a remedy that it considered to be equivalent to what he could receive under Part 708. We therefore upheld the dismissal.
On August 20, 2014, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied an appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) that OHA issued on April 10, 2014, regarding a complaint of retaliation that Edward G. Gallrein, III (Gallrein or the Complainant) filed under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R.
On August 6, 2014, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision granting Mr. Earl Ballard’s Appeal of the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office’s (PPPO) dismissal of his whistleblower complaint for lack of jurisdiction or other good cause. The OHA found that the reasons provided by PPPO for the dismissal, i.e., that Mr. Ballard had not proven that his alleged disclosure was a contributing factor to his dismissal, and that the Part 708 regulations were not applicable to an alleged protected disclosure made within the context of an investigation into Mr.
On August 1, 2014, the Office of Hearings and Appeal’s (OHA) denied an appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued by an OHA Administrative Judge on May 8, 2014, which denied a Complaint filed by Alison Marschman (hereinafter referred to as “the Employee”) against her former employer, Battelle Energy Alliance (hereinafter referred to as “the Contractor”), under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R.
On June 24, 2014, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying Dr. James E. Doyle’s (Appellant) Appeal of the DOE’s NNSA Whistleblower Program Manager’s (Manager) dismissal of his whistleblower complaint pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
This Decision considers an Appeal of a Dismissal issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) on December 5, 2013, of a Complaint filed by Sherrie Walker (the Appellant or Walker) against her employer, Idaho Treatment Group LLC (ITG), under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. In her Complaint, the Appellant alleges that she has repeatedly reported concerns of non-compliance, abuse of management and misconduct and, as a result, has been subjected to retaliation by ITG.
On May 8, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge denied a request for relief under the DOE’s contractor employee protection regulations. Although the Judge found that the Complainant had engaged in activity that is protected by those regulations, he concluded that she had failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that that activity was a contributing factor to one or more acts of retaliation.