Energy.gov

This Decision concerns a whistleblower complaint that Mr. Curtis Broaddus (the complainant) filed under the Department of Energy’s Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. The complainant is an employee of BWXT Pantex (BWXT), the management and operations contractor at the DOE’s Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. The complainant contends that he made a number of disclosures that are protected under Part 708, and that BWXT retaliated against him for making those disclosures.

This Decision considers an Appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on April 21, 2004, involving a complaint filed by S.R. Davis (also referred to as the Complainant) under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. In her Complaint, the Complainant claims that her former employer, Fluor Fernald, Inc. (the Contractor), retaliated against her for engaging in activity that is protected by Part 708.

Felecia Broaddus (Broaddus or the complainant) appeals the dismissal of her July 18, 2006 complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. She filed the complaint with the Whistleblower Program Manager (WP Manager) of the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center (NNSA/SC), located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As explained below, the WP Manager’s August 28, 2006 dismissal of the complaint should be upheld, and the appeal denied.

John Merwin (Merwin or the complainant) appeals the dismissal of his May 1, 2006 complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. He filed the complaint with the Whistleblower Program Manager (WP Manager) of the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center (NNSA/SC), located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As explained below, the WP Manager’s August 14, 2006 dismissal of the complaint should be upheld, and the appeal denied.

This Initial Agency Decision involves a whistleblower complaint filed by Mr. Dennis Patterson (“Patterson,” “the complainant,” or “Complainant”) under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. The complainant was an employee of Batelle Energy Alliance, LLC, (“BEA” or “the contractor”) the management and operating contractor of the DOE Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Idaho Falls, Idaho, where he was employed as the Employee Concerns Program Manager until June 2007.

Dennis D. Patterson (Patterson or the complainant) appeals the dismissal of his June 1, 2006 complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. He filed the complaint with the Employee Concerns (EC) Manager of the DOE’s Idaho Operations Office (DOE/ID), located in Idaho Falls, ID. As explained below, the EC Manager’s July 17, 2006 dismissal of the complaint should be reversed, and the appeal granted.

Gary S. Vander Boegh (Vander Boegh or the complainant) appeals the dismissal of his February 21, 2006 complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. He filed the complaint with the 1 Office of Civil Rights and Diversity of the DOE’s Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center (EMCBC) located in Cincinnati, Ohio. As explained below, the EMCBC June 29, 2006 dismissal of the complaint should be sustained, and the appeal denied.

This letter concerns the complaint of retaliation that you filed with the Department of Energy (DOE} under 10 C.F.R. Part 708. On March 24, 2006, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA} received your petition for Secretarial review of the February 23 jurisdictional appeal decision issued by the OHA Director. Under the Part 708 regulations, the Secretary will reverse or revise an appeal decision by the Director of OHA only in extraordinary circumstances. 10 C.F.R. § 708.19.

This Decision concerns a Motion To Dismiss that was filed by Sandia National Laboratories (hereinafter referred to as “SNL” or “the Respondent”). In this Motion, SNL seeks the dismissal of a complaint that was filed by Casey Von Bargen (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Von Bargen” or “the Complainant”) under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program (or “Whistleblower”) regulations found at 10 C.F.R. Part 708. This complaint is currently under investigation by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) (Case No. TBI-0034).

Caroline C. Roberts (the complainant), appeals the dismissal of her complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. As explained below, the dismissal of the complaint should be sustained, and the appeal denied.