You are here

Whistleblower Cases

RSS
June 5, 2012
TBB-0119 In the Matter of Gennady Ozeryansky

This letter concerns the Petition for Secretarial Review that you filed on September 24,2011, relating to the complaint of retaliation that you filed on August 26, 2010, with the Employee Concerns Program (ECP) Manager of the Department of Energy under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the DOE Contractor Employee Protection Program. The ECP Manager issued a determination on July 13, 2011, dismissing your complaint. On July 29, 2011, you filed an appeal of the July 13 Determination and, on August 29, 2011, the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. On September 24, 2011, you filed a Petition for Secretarial Review of the dismissal of the OHA appeal decision, followed by a September 29, 2011, statement of issued presented for review. On November 16, 2011, SupraMagnetics filed a Response in Opposition to the Secretarial Review. Under the Part 708 regulations, the Secretary will reverse or revise an appeal decision by the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) only under extraordinary circumstances. 10 C.F.R. § 708.19(d). Your statement in support ofthe petition contends that OHA erred in denying you protection from retaliation under Part 708, and that OHA's decision presents extraordinary circumstances meriting the intervention of the Secretary. However, far from demonstrating the requisite "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to warrant Secretarial intervention, the petition does not reveal any error in OHA's determination that, because SupraMagnetics is not a contractor or subcontractor as defined by 10 C.F.R § 708.2, there is no jurisdiction under Part 708 for consideration of your complaint.

May 4, 2012
TBA-0110 - In the Matter of Greta Kathy Congable,

This Decision considers an Appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on September 8, 2011, involving a Complaint of Retaliation that Greta Kathy Congable (Ms. Congable or the complainant) filed under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. In her Complaint, Ms. Congable alleged that she engaged in activity protected under that program and that her employer, Sandia Corporation (Sandia or the contractor), retaliated against her for doing so. In the IAD, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) Hearing Officer denied relief to Ms.

February 9, 2012
TBH-0116 - In the Matter of Stephani Ayers and Gregory Kamer

On February 8, 2012, I received email messages from both of you informing me that Ms. Rhodes and NSTec have settled the above captioned Part 708 complaint, and have requested that the hearing in this matter be cancelled and the underlying Complaint of · retaliation be dismissed. Accordingly, I hereby cancel the hearing scheduled to begin on February 20, 2012, and I hereby dismiss Ms. Rhodes pending Complaint of Retaliation currently assigned Office ofHearings and Appeals Case No. TBH-0116.

September 8, 2011
TBZ-0110 - IN THE MATTER OF GRETA KATHY CONGABLE

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.

September 8, 2011
TBH-0110 - In the Matter of Greta Kathy Congable

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.

August 2, 2011
TBU-0119 - In the Matter of Gennady Ozeryansky
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.
June 29, 2011
TBA-0100 - In the Matter of Vinod Chudgar
This Decision considers an Appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on January 13, 2011, involving a complaint of retaliation filed under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor
Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708, by Vinod Chudgar (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant” or “Mr. Chudgar”) against Savannah River Remediation (hereinafter referred to as
June 3, 2011
TBU-0118 - IN THE MATTER OF GORDON MICHAELS

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.

June 3, 2011
TBU-0117 - In the Matter of Gordon Michaels
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.
May 5, 2011
TBA-0105 - In the Matter of Colleen Monk

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.