Skip to main content

Mr. Rivera may need to take DOE back to court

Image
By
Update: Mr. Rivera may need to take DOE back to the United States District Court


LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY P. X. BOTHWELL 
558 Presidio Blvd., Ste. B
PO Box 29547
San Francisco, CA 94129-0547
(415) 370-9571
apxb007@msn.com 

August 2, 2018

The Honorable Rick Perry
Secretary 
United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585

Re: Anthony T. Rivera v. LLNS
OHA Case No. WBB-17-0010

Dear Secretary Perry:

On January 4, 2018 Anthony Rivera timely filed his Petition to the Secretary seeking review of the case of termination of his employment in 2013, after he had made protected disclosures of safety violations and mismanagement with Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS), the contractor that operates Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).

It has been seven months since that Petition to the Secretary Perry was filed. I am obliged to advise that Mr. Rivera will feel compelled to bring the Department of Energy back into the United States District Court here unless he receives a favorable Final Agency Decision this month, or by September 4, 2018.

Further delay would appear unreasonable in the circumstances. See Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 77-78 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Forrest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178, 1193 (10th Cir. 1998); In re United Mine Workers of America International Union, 190 F.3d 545, 546 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Charles Evans, Case No. TBU-0026 (June 2, 2004). After all, Secretary Moniz unduly had delayed a decision in this case, which arose from events that occurred more years earlier. And I recall that, when the matter was pending in federal court in 2016, the then-counsel for DOE misrepresented to the court that the litigation was “premature” given a review by the then DOE Deputy Secretary was pending, when in actuality the matter was simply pushed back to the DOE OHA, creating additional unreasonable delays for my client. Mr. Rivera and his family needlessly suffer continued emotional and financial hardship as a result of the failure to remedy the unjustified NNSA/LLNS destruction of Mr. Rivera’s career that occurred more than five years ago. 

Your proclaimed commitment to health and safety in DOE facilities, and to zero tolerance for whistleblower retaliation – now tested in the case of Anthony T. Rivera – is much appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

ANTHONY P. X. BOTHWELL
Attorney for Anthony T. Rivera

cc. Dorothy S. Liu, Esq. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

Rumor corner

By scooby
LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
92 comments
Read more