PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 22-1147 ______________ JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; JOHN R. WEBER ______________ Petition for Review of a Final Order of the U.S. Department of the Interior DOI Case No. OI-VA-16-0167-I ______________ Argued March 6, 2023 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges. (Filed: April 3, 2023) Ryan T. Bergsieker Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 1801 California Street Suite 4200 Denver, CO 80202 Andrew T. Brown Zachary C. Freund Julian W. Poon [ARGUED] Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Counsel for Petitioner Edward Himmelfarb [ARGUED] United States Department of Justice Civil Division Room 7541 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Abby C. Wright United States Department of Justice Civil Division Room 7252 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Counsel for Respondent U.S. Department of Interior John R. Weber 5 Harrison Avenue East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Pro Se Intervenor-Respondent 2 ______________ OPINION OF THE COURT ______________ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Jacobs Project Management Co. (“Jacobs”) petitions for review of an order by the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”) that found that Jacobs retaliated against a former employee for whistleblowing in violation of 41 U.S.C. § 4712. Jacobs asserts that the DOI lacked jurisdiction to issue the order because it and the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) acted after various statutory deadlines in § 4712 had passed. Because the deadlines are not jurisdictional, the DOI had the authority to issue its order. We will therefore deny the petition. I A We begin with an overview of the various deadlines that apply to reprisal claims against federal contractors, like Jacobs. By way of background, Congress enacted § 4712 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 as a “Pilot program for enhancement of contractor protection from reprisal for disclosure of certain information.” Pub. L. No. 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632, 1837 (2013). Section 4712(a) prohibits contractors from engaging in reprisals against their employees for disclosing “gross mismanagement of a Federal contract” or any other “violation of a law, rule, or regulation 3 related to a Federal contract.” 41 U.S.C. § 4712(a). Under the statute, a person who believes he has been subject to a reprisal can file a complaint with the OIG of the relevant agency. Id. § 4712(b)(1). “[W]ithin 180 days after receiving the complaint,” the OIG “shall” investigate the complaint and submit a report. Id. § 4712(b)(1)-(2)(A). The OIG may have an additional period of “up to 180 days” to issue the report if the complainant agrees. Id. § 4712(b)(2)(B). “Not later than 30 days after receiving an [OIG] report . . . the head of the executive agency concerned shall determine whether there is sufficient basis” to conclude that there was a prohibited reprisal, and “shall [] issue an order” denying or granting relief. Id. § 4712(c)(1). If the agency head denies relief or “has not issued an order within …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals