This Decision will consider a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sandia Corporation (“Sandia” or “the Respondent”), in connection with a complaint filed against the company by one of its employees, Greta Kathy Congable (“Ms. Congable” or “the Complainant”), on September 14, 2010, under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 708.1 OHA has designated Ms. Congable’s hearing request as Case No. TBH-0110, and the present Motion for Summary Judgment as Case No. TBZ-0110.
Gennady Ozeryansky (Ozeryansky), a former employee of SupraMagnetics, Inc. (SupraMagnetics), appeals the dismissal of his retaliation complaint filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program.1 The DOE’s Employee Concerns Program Manager (the ECP Manager) dismissed Ozeryansky’s complaint on July 13, 2011. As explained below, the Appeal should be denied.
Gordon Michaels appeals the dismissal of his whistleblower complaint filed under I 0 C.F .R. Patt 708, the Depattment of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. Two offices having jurisdiction over the complaint, the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center (NNSA/SC) and the DOE's Oak Ridge Office (ORO), dismissed the complaint, on Aprill2, 20 II, and May I 0, 20 II, respectively. As explained below, we affirm the dismissals of the complaint, and deny the appeals therefrom.
This Decision considers an Appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on January 20, 2009, involving a complaint of retaliation filed by Colleen Monk (“Monk,” or “Complainant”) against Washington TRU Solutions, VJ Technologies, and Mobile Characterization Services (hereinafter referred to individually as “WTS,” “VJT,” and “MCS,” respectively, or collectively as “the Respondents”), under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708.
This Decision considers an Appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on August 25, 2010, involving a Complaint of Retaliation filed by Arun K. Dutta (Mr. Dutta or the complainant) under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. In his Complaint, Mr. Dutta alleged that his former employer, Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group, Inc. (Parsons or the contractor), retaliated against him for engaging in activity protected under Part 708. In the IAD, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) Hearing Officer determined that Mr.