WILLIAM G. TADLOCK CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Respondent

Good Law
91 F.3d 1335·1996 WL 438875·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19505·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5833
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 6, 199695-70146California3,088 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

William G. Tadlock Construction (Tadlock Construction) was ordered by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to pay Michael S. McGill, a former employee, $6,400 in back pay for retaliating against McGill after he made protected disclosures to Navy officials. The DLA’s authority to take this action came from former 10 U.S.C. § 2409a (1988 ed. Supp. V, 1993) (repealed 1994). In this petition for review, Tadlock Construction argues that: 1) the DLA’s action was not permitted under § 2409a because that section does not apply to nonappropriated fund (NAF) contracts; 2) the DLA lacked jurisdiction over McGill’s complaint because it was not timely filed; and 3) the DLA lost jurisdiction over McGill’s complaint because it failed to meet a number of statutory deadlines.

We deny the petition.

BACKGROUND

Statutory Background

This ease concerns former 10 U.S.C. § 2409a, which was repealed on October 13, 1994. The parties agree that § 2409a controls this case because all of the relevant actions occurred while it was in effect. The statute prohibited defense contractors from:

10 U.S.C. § 2409a(b) (1988 ed. Supp. V, 1993) (repealed 1994).

Under the statute, defense contractor employees who…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.