Below are the head notes for the FAB decisions and orders relating to the topic heading, DOE Contractor Employees. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Definition of, Employees of other federal agencies, and Employees of state agencies. To view a particular decision or order in its entirety, click on the hyperlink for that decision or order at the end of the head note.
- While EEOICPA does not contain a separate definition of a “DOE contractor,” it does contain a definition of a “DOE contractor employee” that, in effect, defines what a DOE contractor is. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 366-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, June 3, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 27798-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, June 20, 2003).
- A civilian employee of a state or federal government agency can be considered a “DOE contractor employee” if the government agency employing that individual is: (1) found to have entered into a contract with DOE for the accomplishment of services it was not statutorily obligated to perform; and (2) DOE compensated the agency for that activity. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 30971-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, March 15, 2004); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 75271-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, August 29, 2007).
- In determining whether the state of Kentucky contracted with DOE to provide services at a DOE facility, DOE’s conveyance of a certain interest in land to the state was not compensation for any services performed for DOE but was rather for the purpose of wildlife management. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife was not considered to be a DOE contractor since it performed activities on DOE-owned land for which it was otherwise responsible under state law. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- A “contractor” is an entity engaged in a contractual business arrangement with DOE to provide services, produce materials or manage operations at a beryllium vendor facility or a DOE facility. A “subcontractor” is an entity engaged in a contractual business arrangement with a beryllium vendor or a DOE contractor to provide a service at a beryllium vendor facility or a DOE facility. A “contract” for the purpose of determining whether an entity is a “DOE contractor” is an agreement to perform a service in exchange for compensation, usually memorialized by a memorandum of understanding, a cooperative agreement, an actual written contract, or any form of written or implied agreement. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- In determining whether the state of Kentucky contracted with DOE to provide services at a DOE facility, the fact that the state was not required to compensate DOE for the use of DOE-owned property did not, conversely, show that DOE compensated the state for services provided to DOE. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34771-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, July 21, 2003).
- To support a finding that a contractor employee or subcontractor employee performed work for DOE and was therefore a “DOE contractor employee,” the individual must have performed a “service” for the benefit of DOE within the boundaries of a DOE facility. The mere delivery of goods alone is insufficient to establish that a service was performed for the benefit of DOE. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 50247-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 16, 2004).
- Sales representative for a railroad that hauled freight cars after they had been removed from the DOE facility by another company is not a covered employee where there is no evidence of a contractual relationship between his employer and DOE to provide management, remediation or any other services at the facility. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 56806-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, November 1, 2004).
- Survivor who submitted a statement indicating that her husband was employed by Illinois Central Railroad as a flagman and conductor was unable to establish covered employment because the mere delivery and loading or unloading of goods alone is insufficient to establish that a service was performed for the benefit of DOE. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 61192-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, April 5, 2005).
- Employee was found to have been an employee of the AEC. Erroneous finding by a Physicians Panel under Part D that the employee was employed by a DOE contractor is not binding on OWCP. An employee of the federal government cannot be considered an employee of a government contractor or subcontractor, unless the government agency by which they are employed has a contract with DOE to provide services that meet the criteria established in EEOICPA Bulletin No. 03-26 (June 3, 2003). EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10028664-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, August 24, 2006).
- A memorandum of agreement between GSA, DOE and the Department of Defense concerned the environmental investigatory work these three agencies undertook at the Bannister Federal Complex pursuant to their respective statutory obligations. While the memorandum of agreement provided that each party could seek reimbursement from the others for investigatory costs, it is not evidence of a contract in which GSA agreed to perform services it was not statutorily obligated to perform in exchange for compensation from DOE, and therefore did not establish that the employee was a “DOE contractor employee.” EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20130111-12000242-2 (Dep’t of Labor, June 13, 2013).
Employees of other federal agencies
- Individual’s mere presence on DOE-owned property did not confer covered employment status. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 366-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, June 3, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 27798-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, June 20, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- Employee of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who provided services on Amchitka Island was not a DOE contractor employee because he provided services on Amchitka in conjunction with a Department of Defense venture, the Blair Lake Project, and not pursuant to a contract between DOE and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 366-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, June 3, 2003).
- A civilian employee of a state or federal government agency can be considered a “DOE contractor employee” if the government agency employing that individual is: (1) found to have entered into a contract with DOE for the accomplishment of services it was not statutorily obligated to perform; and (2) DOE compensated the agency for that activity. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 30971-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, March 15, 2004); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 75271-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, August 29, 2007).
- An employee of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey who provided services at the Nevada Test Site and was issued a radiation badge by the AEC did not perform such services pursuant to a contract between the AEC and the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. As opposed to private companies, government agencies often cooperate with and provide services for other agencies absent a contract for remuneration. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 30971-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, March 15, 2004).
- Survivor was able to establish that employee was a member of the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) by submitting documents generated by USGS and other third parties verifying employment with USGS on Amchitka Island: a technical letter prepared by USGS for the AEC indicating that the employee was part of a reconnaissance team on Amchitka; a USGS paper prepared on behalf of the AEC stating that the employee was involved in mapping on Amchitka; a letter of appreciation from the AEC to USGS for the employee’s part in a reconnaissance team on Amchitka Island; and an employment history affidavit from two co-workers at USGS during the 1960’s and 1970’s. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 63258-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, March 11, 2005).
- Employee of the USGS was a “DOE contractor employee” where evidence established that: (1) he worked at the Nevada Test Site under a contract by which the USGS provided services to the AEC; and (2) the AEC compensated the USGS for those services. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 75271-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, August 29, 2007).
- FAB concluded that a Department of the Army civilian employee who worked at IAAP for at least 250 work days on Line 1 during the period March 1949 through 1974 and was diagnosed with a specified cancer was not eligible for benefits under EEOICPA, because there was insufficient evidence to support that the AEC contracted with the Army to provide services to the AEC at IAAP that the Army was not otherwise statutorily obligated to perform. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 87969-2008 (Dep’t of Labor, November 19, 2008).
- A GSA employee who performed maintenance work on utilities located on the grounds of the Kansas City Plant was unable to meet his burden of proof to establish that he was a “DOE contractor employee,” because he did not submit evidence of a contract between GSA and DOE, or a subcontract between GSA and DOE’s contractor, that obligated GSA to perform work it was not statutorily obligated to perform at this DOE facility in exchange for compensation. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20130111-12000242-2 (Dep’t of Labor, June 13, 2013).
- Individual’s mere presence on DOE-owned property did not confer covered employment status. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 366-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, June 3, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 27798-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, June 20, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- State employee on assignment to Amchitka Island to witness the Long Shot and Milrow tests at the invitation of the AEC was not a DOE contractor employee since he provided services on Amchitka Island for the state and not pursuant to a contract between DOE and the state. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 27798-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, June 20, 2003).
- A civilian employee of a state or federal government agency can be considered to be a “DOE contractor employee” if the government agency employing that individual is: (1) found to have entered into a contract with DOE for the accomplishment of services it was not statutorily obligated to perform; and (2) DOE compensated the agency for that activity. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 30971-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, March 15, 2004); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- Employee of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife who provided wildlife management services on DOE-owned land at Paducah, Kentucky was not a DOE contractor employee because there was no evidence that the state agency entered into an agreement with DOE to accomplish one or more services for DOE that the state agency was not statutorily obligated to perform, and there was no evidence that the state agency was compensated by DOE for that activity. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- In determining whether the state of Kentucky contracted with DOE to provide services at a DOE facility, the fact that the state was not required to compensate DOE for the use of DOE-owned property did not, conversely, show that DOE compensated the state for services provided to DOE. The evidence shows simply that DOE gave permission to the state to use federal land in order to conduct hunting, fishing or similar activities. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- In determining whether the state of Kentucky contracted with DOE to provide services at a DOE facility, DOE’s conveyance of a certain interest in land to the state was not compensation for any services performed for DOE but was rather for the purpose of wildlife management. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- An employee of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources did not meet the definition of a DOE contractor employee where the license permitted the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources to utilize DOE land as a field trial area. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34771-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, July 21, 2003).