Casey Ruud, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Intervenor v. U.S. Department of Labor Westinghouse Hanford Company

Casey Ruud petitions for review of a decision of the Department of Labor (“DOL”) Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) approving the settlement of his whistleblower retaliation complaint against Westinghouse Hanford pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (b), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (b). In approving the settlement agreement, the ARB acted on behalf of the Secretary of Labor under the authority of both the Clean Air Act and CERCLA. The Clean Air Act provides for immediate review in the court of appeals, while CERCLA does not. This case thus raises a knotty jurisdictional question: Where an agency issues a decision that has two or more distinct bases of authority providing separate paths of judicial review, does the appellate court have jurisdiction to review the entire proceeding? We hold that it does.

I.

As we decide in this opinion only a jurisdictional question, we provide only the briefest of factual summaries:

II.

In entering into the settlement, the ARB relied upon the Secretary’s authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (b), as well as her authority under CERCLA, 42…