Court Opinion

ID: 9882047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:01:06.337318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:19.154821
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1899      Doc: 74         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1899

        EDNA D. FORDHAM,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; MARTY J. WALSH, Secretary,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Labor. (2021-0029)

        Submitted: January 13, 2023                                       Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before AGEE, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Thad M. Guyer, Stephani L. Ayers, T.M. GUYER AND AYERS &
        FRIENDS, PC, Medford, Oregon, for Petitioner. Seema Nanda, Solicitor of Labor,
        Jennifer S. Brand, Associate Solicitor, Maria Van Buren, Acting Deputy Associate
        Solicitor, Megan E. Guenther, Counsel for Whistleblower Programs, Meron T. Kebede,
        Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington,
        D.C., for Respondents.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1899      Doc: 74        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Edna Fordham petitions for review of an order of the Department of Labor

        Administrative Review Board dismissing her appeal from the Administrative Law Judge’s

        decision denying her complaint that her former employer, Fannie Mae, violated her rights

        under the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C.

        § 1514A. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence does

        not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings and that

        substantial evidence supports the denial of Fordham’s complaint for relief. See Biestek v.

        Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for

        the reasons stated by the Board. Fordham v. Fannie Mae (ARB July 19, 2021). We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                             PETITION DENIED

                                                    2