Limit the circumstances under which DOE contractors can receive federal reimbursement for the legal fees they incur in their defenses of whistleblower cases. Once an adverse ruling or judgment is brought against the contractor, the contractor must either settle the case or pay the subsequent legal fees itself (unless the adverse ruling is overturned in the end). This amendment was proposed by Rep. Markey, and was agreed to by Chairman Tauzin and included in the version of the Energy bill passed by the Committee.

a) Ensures that DOE and NRC employees and contractor employees have whistleblower protections if they are retaliated against for disclosing violations of the Atomic Energy Act.

b) Allows DOE and NRC employees and contractor employees, and NRC licensee employees and contractor employees to take their whistleblower cases to court if the Department of Labor fails to act on them within 6 months.

This amendment was proposed by Rep. Markey, and was jointly offered to the Committee’s markup by Chairman Tauzin and Rep. Markey.

Ms. Dee Kotla alleged that she was retaliated against and ultimately fired by LLNL in 1997 because she testified at a sexual harassment trial involving other LLNL personnel. LLNL said it fired Ms. Kotla for misuse of her computer and her telephone. However, according to reports, Ms. Kotla only had $4.30 in telephone charges, and said that her use of her computer was minimal. Ms. Kotla sued the lab for wrongful termination, and won $1 million in damages and her legal fees in two separate rulings. However, the lab continues to endlessly appeal the case, and has charged almost $1 million to the federal government in its own legal fees fighting this case.

In early 2001, Mr. Ron Bath, an NRC contractor employee, was fired after reporting criminal misconduct on the part of NRC employees. He was fired at the direct request of one of the NRC employees he blew the whistle on. The NRC Inspector General (IG) concluded that Mr. Bath was fired in direct retaliation for his disclosures. Then, the three NRC employees who he had accused were arrested, and all were either convicted or pled guilty. Although his allegations were found to be true, and the IG found he had in fact been retaliated against as a consequence of blowing the whistle, the NRC continues to fight Ron Bath’s case - because first of all, NRC contractors do not have whistleblower protections, and second of all, because Mr. Bath was a contractor retaliated against by a federal employee – and that situation was never considered when the whistleblower laws were written.