On March 27, 2013, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision granting in part and denying in part Ms. Starks’s Appeal of the DOE’s Richland Operations Office’s (RL) Employee Concerns Program’s (ECP) dismissal of her whistleblower complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The OHA agreed with the ECP’s dismissal of Ms.
On January 8, 2013, a Hearing Officer issued an Initial Agency Decision involving a complaint filed by John Robertson against KQ Services (KQ) under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program and its governing regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 708. In his complaint, Mr.
On December 20, 2012, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied an Appeal of a Dismissal of a Complaint filed by Wendy L. Warren (Appellant or Ms. Warren). Ms. Warren filed the Complaint against her former employers, MS Technology, Inc. (MS) and B&W Y-12, L.L.C. (B&W). The Appellant alleges in her complaint that MS and B&W terminated her employment after she reported fraud, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, and abuse of authority. Ms. Warren claims that she reported timekeeping irregularities of her supervisor.
On October 2, 2012, a Hearing Officer issued an Interlocutory Order denying a Motion to Dismiss filed by Shaw AREVA MOX Services, LLC (Shaw), regarding a complaint submitted by Jeffrey S. Derrick under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 708. Shaw alleged that Derrick’s Part 708 complaint should be dismissed because Shaw management had prior knowledge of Derrick’s disclosures concerning pipe installation at the DOE’s Mixed Oxide Fabrication Facility in Savannah River.
On September 12, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a Protective Order in a case involving a Complaint of Retaliation filed by John Robertson against KQ Services under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program and its governing regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 708. During the process of pre-hearing discovery in the matter, counsel for KQ Services requested that the DOE Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR) Employee Concerns Program, produce certain documents in its possession. On September 12, 2012, DOE-SR submitted a Stipulated Protective Order to which DOE-SR, Mr.
This determination will consider two requests for discovery filed with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) on September 24 and 27, 1993, by Ronald A. Sorri (Sorri) and L&M Technologies, Inc. (L&M), respectively.
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.
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.
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.
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.