Opinion
21-1899
10-03-2023
EDNA D. FORDHAM, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; MARTY J. WALSH, Secretary, Respondents.
Thad M. Guyer, Stephani L. Ayers, T.M. GUYER AND AYERS & FRIENDS, PC, Medford, Oregon, for Petitioner. Seema Nanda, Solicitor of Labor, Jennifer S. Brand, Associate Solicitor, Maria Van Buren, Acting Deputy Associate Solicitor, Megan E. Guenther, Counsel for Whistleblower Programs, Meron T. Kebede, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 13, 2023
On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Labor. (2021-0029)
ON BRIEF:
Thad M. Guyer, Stephani L. Ayers, T.M. GUYER AND AYERS & FRIENDS, PC, Medford, Oregon, for Petitioner.
Seema Nanda, Solicitor of Labor, Jennifer S. Brand, Associate Solicitor, Maria Van Buren, Acting Deputy Associate Solicitor, Megan E. Guenther, Counsel for Whistleblower Programs, Meron T. Kebede, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before AGEE, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edna Fordham petitions for review of an order of the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board dismissing her appeal from the Administrative Law Judge's decision denying her complaint that her former employer, Fannie Mae, violated her rights under the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings and that substantial evidence supports the denial of Fordham's complaint for relief. See Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Fordham v. Fannie Mae (ARB July 19, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED