Appeals Court Declines to Review Jury Trial Decision in Tamosaitis Case
WC Monitor
3/6/2015
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined this week to review a November ruling in favor of Hanford whistleblower Walt Tamosaitis. In November, a three-judge panel of the appeals court found that Tamosaitis’ case was wrongly dismissed from federal court and that he was entitled to a trial by jury, the first time a court of appeals has confirmed that whistleblowers under the Energy Reorganization Act are entitled to a jury trial, his attorney said. URS, which has recently been purchased by AECOM, had asked for a review by a larger panel. The full court was advised of the petition for a rehearing and no judge requested a vote on the matter. The request for a rehearing was then rejected, according to court documents.
Such requests are rarely granted, said Jack Sheridan, the attorney for Tamosaitis. “The only effect it had was to delay the trial date again,” Sheridan said. He is hoping the case still will go to trial this year. AECOM had no comment after the ruling, but if it wants to again appeal the 9th Circuit decision, its remaining option is the U.S. Supreme Court. “Walter couldn’t be happier that he is finally getting his day in court in front of a jury,” Sheridan said. Tamosaitis already has been vindicated by the halt to construction of the Pretreatment Facility at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant to resolve technical issues, including keeping waste well mixed in vessels within the plant, Sheridan said. “As of today, the mixing issue is still not solved, and the testing Walter argued for is finally being done,” Sheridan said.
Tamosaitis Removed From WTP in 2010
In the summer of 2010, Tamosaitis raised a concern that technical issues, including some related to keeping waste well mixed within the plant, had not been resolved as Bechtel National was working to meet a deadline to collect fee dependent on resolving the issues, according to court documents. AECOM is Bechtel’s primary subcontractor, and Tamosaitis worked for the company that now is AECOM. Tamosaitis is claiming he was removed from the project, where he had been the research and technology manager for the project, in retaliation for raising technical issues. Bechtel and AECOM have strongly denied that. They say his assignment had ended and that he was removed after he sent an email that offended consultants on the project. Tamosatitis continued to work for what is now AECOM, but with little meaningful work, until he was laid off, according to court documents.
The 9th Circuit panel concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Bechtel’s subcontrator ratified Bechtel’s retaliation by removing Tamosaitis from the vitrification plant project, despite knowing of Bechtel’s retaliatory motive. URS, now AECOM, could have refused to remove Tamosaitis, but did not, the panel found. Tamosaitis also sued Bechtel, but lost that case before it went to trial in Benton County Superior Court. He now has a complaint filed with the Department of Labor against Bechtel and the Department of Energy, plus additional claims against AECOM. If the Department of Labor does not rule on it this month — it has a year to take action — he could take Bechtel and DOE to court again.
