Source: http://energy.gov/oha/whistleblower-cases?page=10
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 08:41:41
Document Index: 586015178

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 708', 'art 7', '§ 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708', 'art 708']

March 4, 2008TBB-0071 - In the Matter of Jeffrey Burnette This letter concerns the Complaint of Retaliation that you filed with the Department of Energy (DOE) under 10 C.F.R. Part 708. On October 10, 2007, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) received your petition for Secretarial review of the August 30, 2007, jurisdictional appeal decision issued by the OHA Deputy Director. Under the Part 7 0 8 regulations, the Secretary will reverse or revise an appeal decision by the OHA only in extraordinary circumstances. 10 C.F.R. § 708.19.
March 4, 2008TBB-0030 - In the Matter of Curtis Broaddus This letter concerns the complaint of retaliation filed with the Department of Energy (DOE) under 10 C.F.R. Part 708 by Curtis Broaddus. On October 3, 2007, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) received your petition for Secretarial review of the August 29, 2007, Appeal Decision issued by the OHA Acting Director.
February 13, 2008TBA-0042 - In the Matter of Curtis Hall This Decision considers two Appeals of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on March 15, 2007, by a Hearing Officer in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The IAD addressed the merits of a whistleblower complaint filed by Curtis Hall against his former employer, Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI), under the Department of Energy’s Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. See Curtis Hall, 29 DOE ¶ 87,022 (2007). In his complaint, Mr. December 18, 2007TBA-0069 - In the Matter of Gary S. Vander Boegh This Decision considers three Appeals of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on July 11, 2003, involving a complaint filed by Gary S. Vander Boegh under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. November 21, 2007TBZ-0047 - In the Matter of Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC This decision concerns a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (“BEA,” “the contractor,” or “Respondent”) on September 6, 2007. The motion relates to five pending complaints filed by one of its employees, Dennis Patterson (“Mr. Patterson” or “the complainant”), under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Regulations codified at 10 CFR Part 708. In the motion under consideration, BEA requests that I dismiss two of the five Part 708 complaints.
November 19, 2007TBH-0039 - In the Matter of Joshua Lucero This Initial Agency Decision concerns a whistleblower complaint filed by Joshua Lucero (Lucero) against his former employer, Wackenhut Services, Inc. (WSI), under the Department of Energy=s (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, which is codified at 10 C.F.R. Part 708. WSI is a contractor that provides services to the DOE=s Office of Secure Transportation (OST). Lucero alleges that he engaged in activity protected by Part 708 and, as a result, was retaliated against by WSI.
November 8, 2007TBH-0057 - In the Matter of Frederick L. Higgs This Decision concerns a whistleblower complaint that Frederick L. Higgs (the complainant) filed under the Department of Energy’s Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708, against his former employer, Texas Environmental Plastics, Ltd. (TEP), a DOE subcontractor at the DOE’s Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina.1 The complainant contends that he made a number of disclosures that are protected under Part 708, and that TEP retaliated against him for making those disclosures by terminating his employment. November 5, 2007TBH-0046 - In the Matter of David K. Isham David Isham filed a retaliation complaint (the Part 708 Complaint or the Complaint) under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. 10 C.F.R. Part 708 (2007). As explained below, I have determined that the Complaint should be dismissed.
November 2, 2007TBH-0034 - In the Matter of Casey von Bargen This Initial Agency Decision involves a whistleblower complaint filed by Mr. Casey von Bargen (also referred to as the complainant or the individual) under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. The complainant was an employee of COMPA Industries, Inc. (COMPA), a subcontractor of Sandia Corporation (Sandia) which manages the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in Albuquerque, New Mexico for the DOE. On June 2, 2003, he began employment at the SNL facility as a safety engineer. August 30, 2007TBU-0071 - In the Matter of Jeffrey R. Burnette Jeffrey R. Burnette (Burnette or the complainant), appeals the dismissal of his complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Section 708.17. As explained below, the dismissal of the complaint should be sustained, and the appeal denied.