ML20236E048

Affidavit of Bp Garde in Support of Motion for Reconsideration.*

ML20236E048
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/23/1987
From:	Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:
Shared Package
ML20236E008	List: ML20236E004 ML20236E048
References
CPA, NUDOCS 8710290038
Download: ML20236E048 (9)

Text

. - .

Y

. AFFIDAVIT 10F BILLIE PIRNER GARDE 1 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION l

.l The.following information is true and correct to the best of i

my knowledge and belief. lThe information contained'in this i

affidavit is being provided without threat or coercion, and free from any promise'or reward.

1.. In February 1984, I met Meddie Gregory.. At that time (

i Meddie was employed by Brown & Root at the-Comanche Peak site;  !

-t q gie working with the control quality documents, f

2. At the occasion of our-first meeting, Ms. Gregory ,

informed me that she was aware of certain practices at the site which she believed to be violations of site quality control. l procedures, falsification of documents, harassment.and i

3 intimidation of quality control inspectors, and other specific t

~

incidents in which Brown & Root management had acted'in a manner that prevented quality control inspectors'from identifying.

l problems.  ;

l

3. She informed me that she wished to provide the 1

[

i information that she had to the NRC for their investigation, but j that she could not risk the loss of her. job.-

1 J

4. She told me that she was the sole' supporter of an invalid sister, who was dying of emphasema, and of her sister's

}

I s minor son, who was handicapped, i S. Ms. Gregory from March to June 1984 provided l E information to the NRC on a number of occasions, under a grant of i

I confidentiality.

6. On July 13, 1984, Ms. Gregory was laid-off'from her j

- 1 4'  !

8710290038 871023 ' 1 1 PDR ADOCK 05000445 "

1 G- PDR I

i i

- . - _ _ - - 1

i employment with Brown & Root. j l

-7. On August 10, 1987, Ms.-Gregory filed a Section 210  !

complaint against Brown & Root. alleging that her discharge had i l

been orchestrated by Brown & Root officials who had learned her a 1

identity from indiscriminate. disclosures by the NRC of information uniquely tied to her area of job responsibility.

l

8. The Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division, following l 7

a preliminary investigation, reached a' determination ti'at Ms.

Gregory had lost her job as a result of engaging in protected activity and ordered her reinstated with full payment of back pay and restoration of benefits. That determination is contained in a September 26, 1984 letter to Brown & Root from Curtis Poer, l

Wage & Hour Division Area Director.

9. I, under the direction and control of an attorney, l represented Ms. Gregory in her Section 210 complaint. ,

i

10. Brown & Root appealed the Department of Labor's' initial determination, discovery was conducted by both parties into the l

basis for Ms. Gregory's discharge, and a full evidentiary hearing was held on November 13, 1984. l

11. During this time period, Ms. Gregory was unable to find further work in or around the Glen Rose, Texas, area to which she was tied because of the responsibilities of her sister and her nephew.

12. Ms. Gregory's unemployment compensation was not'enough to pay the house payment, and the exorbitant electric bills that resulted from her sister's 24-hour medical equipment needs.

13. Shortly after the conclusion of Ms. Gregory's

l

c. -_- ,

Department of Labor hearing, her sister: died.

.y

14. . Within two weeks Ms, Gregory was diagnosed as.having .]

terminal cancer.

15. I was contacted by the business office of the Hugley 5,

'I Medical Hospital at Fort Worth, Texas, or. the day that Ms.. ,

j

,. j Gregory was diagnosed and taken'to imediate' surgery..  !

I

16. I was informed that Ms. Gregory would not be operated on without some. insurance coverage or the assurance that her expenses would be paid.

17. The business office informed me that if I was able to produce some assurance.that she would receive medical coverage that they would admit her to surgery and treatment.

18. I was informed by both the business office and their social services representative that Ms. Gregory was ineligible for Medicare because she was too young and because she'had worked  ;

for the bulk of her career for the City of Port Worth, which did. ls not participate in Medicare payments so that she did'not'have the j

?

requisite age or years of employment to qualify her for any of- l t  !

l the exemptions. j i .

3 j

~

19. Knowing that Ms. Gregory had served several years in 1

the U.S. Navy, I then contacted the Veterans Administration to ,

see if she would be eligible for hospitalization, treatment and .l j

surgery for cancer if no one else would provide those services  !

l '

for her.

l 20. I was informed by the Veterans Administration in ,

Washington that Ms. Gregory would not be eligible for such--

L) i services for a variety of reasons, including the reason that-she. j 1

L .I a

1

-j

did not.have a' service related' disability l connected to the l disease, and that1the waiting list and priorities.for. treatment and provision of services prohibited her being eligible for such-veterans benefits.

21. I then contacted a local banker in Glen Rose and attempted to secure.a loan in her name using either myself or someone acceptable to=the bank as a co-signer for the purpose'of giving the.hospitalJa cash deposit so they wouldfdo the surgery.

22. I could not' secure such a loan.

23. Following my unsuccessful efforts to find Ms. Gregory any other relief acceptable to the hospital, I advised Ms.

Gregory that, in my opinion, based not on'the merits of the case, but solely on Ms. Gregory's critical health condition,.that.we

~

contact Brown & Root and attempt to get them to reinstate her insurance pending the resolution of the Department of Labor matter.

24. I obtained Ms. Gregory's permission to contact Brown &L Root and take whatever actions they demanded necessary to obtain reinstatement of her medical insurance so that the hospital would-perform the surgery.

25. I then contacted Bruce Downey of Brown & Root, apprised him of Ms. Gregory's medical and financial dilemma.

26. My notes indicate that during the first conversation the only proposal I raised was the reinstatement of.Ms. Gregory's health insurance benefits pending the outcome of'the DOL claim.

27. My notes of my conversation with Mr. Downey indicate that Mr. Downey informed me that he would contact Brown & Root

-4 -

t 'l

t e >

+ ;/) ! '  :. n'- .e 2 y( ..

--- nm=-wn*

.. p ;-- 3 rn-

,yy 1 _ , , ,

6> . 4

.t

. . . , . - . ,, ' Nj if or . their: p'ositioni. bu't ' that'helsas confident- that'the: only.- way) 4 . ,

-n s

[ Brown &+Rootiwould consider reinstating.her;healthjinsurance?was:_ .

1.l inLexchangeffor!asfull,and' complete release on'all Ms'., Gregory's ;t M y n:

v

' potential . causes ; ofiaction lstemmingif rom ' her ' employment' at Brown .

. . i M &cRoot.

.]

28L :.My' notes nextLihdicate that'Mr.;Downey.re' turned myfcallf , h and informed me~that lit was:Browni&)Rodt's i position thatlifIMsl h

, . d l

~

Gregory wo'u'ld ag reel to? thaticondition,- he 'would Leal'1 ' the, hospitial

~

d and giveLthemihis personal assurance'onLbehalf of-BrownJ&". Root'- O q

that~ the medi~ cal' benefits'.would--beTreinstated: retroactively;to c ,

cover the cost of~her-' hospitalization.

29. My notes'andimy' memory indicate thatEI then called.Ms.1 i

Gregory at the hospitallto discuss with her the. sweeping: ,

'! settlement' agreement.which:. Brown & Root was? proposing.

30. Ms'. Gregoryfinstructed me to: Attemptto}obtainTenough,

~

j cash to pay two back-house' payments,'and'her'el'ectrl'c bill',.both -

~ '

1

-of which had accumulated over trie pasti severalL months. . A

31. She told'me that her home'was.bei~ng)foreclosediandLtha't' "i the' electricity was about to be shut'off, leaving'her nephew -

homeless.

i

32. Given these instructions, I then contacted Mr.lDowney; 9 and informed him that if he could come up' with the1 money' to : meet  :

. . . 4 those needs, that Ms. Gregory had authorized-me?to sett'le her ,

.)

\

claims. 4

33. It was and is'my opinion that this-agre~ement was.

substantially below any fair. resolution of.Ms. Gregory.'s claim'.

and that.the only'reasonLMs. Gregory--agreed'toLit,;orL.I.

i.

a recommended it,.was that Brown & Root gave.her no choice in the face of Ms. Gregory's health emergency.

34. Based on my professional' opinion and. experience in'

. Department of Labor cases with similar factsLand circumstances, i.e., a Wage & Hour Division holding-in favor of the1 complainant, and a strong evidentiary record, a fair settlement of this matter-would have included back pay, reinstatement of benefits, attorneys fees and expenses, with some movement on' rehire.versus-a lump sum settlement.

35. Based on that agreement, it is my understanding and belief that Mr. Downey; called the. hospital-and informed them of Brown & Root's commitment.

36. Ms. Gregory was'then oper'ated on, a five-inch tumor was removed, and she began extensive chemotherapy and radiation treatment with a very pwor prognosis.

37. Mr. Downey arranged for a loan from the Brown & Root credit union for Ms. Gregory to deal with'the back house payments, for which it wa's used, and gave his personal assurance that no actions would be made to collcct the loan or the interest.

38. Mr. Downey also resolved the outstanding lectric bill in some manner apart from Ms. Gregory.

39. Brown & Root did not give Ms. Gregory any cash.

40. Based on my recollection, sometime in the Summer of 1985 the medical benefits were discontinued. Unbeknownst to me at the time Ms. Gregory then personally contacted Bruce Downey about the discontinuance and he took some sort of personal' action

_ - - _ _ _ _ _ -_-___ ^

s ,

9: > , ,

d

~ .l1 to restore.these. benefits-for someltime' period. AsLI'was'onj 1

~

. vacation at the; time, Mr.1DowneyEcontacted~my; office:toxinform-j them'. of thefcontact by:my client and clater : told 2 me that h'esha'd. t i personally takenicare of the problemLand restored M,s. Gregory's

~

3 ';:l

. . M benefits for a-limited period of time.  :

'I

41. From January 1985 until'the time ~of her death,.Mb.- ~

G'tegory continued'a noble'and. valiant struggle lagainst cancer'.. d

.q

42. She also maintained her home'and,saw to11t that;her' nephew finished vocational training a'ndTreceived a? job. ,

l

43. Several months-beforecher death, when almost completely. .1 d

disabled,.Ms.' Gregory finally' lost'her=houseLandlwas; displaced t'o. '

]

l '!'

a small travel trailer-outside of Glen Rose, Texas'.. ,

c l- 44.During the past three to five! months.of her life, Ms..

Gregory was. gravely 11'1. She did notJinform me,-and.I do notL l' believe.she was ever' apprised'of the factithat h'r ,

e health ~. [6 insurance benefits would lapse.orEthat they had' lapsed Nh e she l

was refused further hospitalization-on that basissatLthe very end-

]

of her life. Further,'that even if'she1had been solinformed that 1 her financial'and health limitations 1were such thattshe.was incapable of taking action,to resolve the matter.  !

i

45. . Subsequent to her death, I: learned.from-Ms'. Gregory!s j i

sister the following: -!

"Por the:last seven. months.in herLlife-(Brown & Root)Ldid q

not pay anything~at all on her' medical? expenses, and foritheL ]

six' months'before that she had a. hassle with every claim- y]

j they_ filed and had'to wait and wait,for them to' decide.to, j pay t hem. " '(Letter of Vyla'Hende'r son'to-Anthony Roisman',. l s

.7.-

]

1

- c 4 .  ;( ,

?

a

- i.

.dnted-September 19,11987).-

46. During"my last visit-with Ms. GregoryLon July 29, 1987,,

she instructed me that.after her death I was'to ensure'that the.

-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Was-madelaware of,the reasons that she settled:her harassment and discrimination' claims, and' the facts as developed in the Section 210 proceeding. ;-(At-an appropriate. future' time'in the hearing, CASE.will' introduce into.

evidence the record of the Section 210. proceedings from which this Board will be able to conclude that Ms. Gregory was terminated solely because she: reported safety concerns <to the NRC j- and Brown & Root believed she had done so.)

47. I have read Brown & Root's' filing.in this matter regarding Ms.' Gregory. I state that I' unequivocally believed that Ms.' Gregory's settlement with. Brown & Root. precluded her-from filing any actions stemming'from her: wrongful (discharge,"and-L _I repeatedly advised Ms. Gregory notito file a tort suitlagainst her former employer or take any other action which Brown'& Root could construe as a violation of theLsettlement agreement for-fear that Brown & Root would initiate a breach of-contract: action against Ms. Gregory, or at a minimum,'iscontinue d the benefits =

they had niade available to her. The implication'that Ms. Gregory was free to file suit without fear of her health: insurance benefits being cut off is beyond comprehension:to me.

48. It is my personal opinion and belief that Mr. Downey's .

actions in this settlement were a sincere reflection of.his meeting the demands of his client, while personally insuring to.

the extent it was within his power to do so -- that Ms'. Gregory; 1

1 6 d O

mm.77 , . .,

f.0 t ,

1 -. ,

r.

.i 1

l <

~

was treated fairly.

49. As'the_ original filing made clear, it was;the' actions

'i of' Brown & Root, and presumably TexasLUtilities', toward Ms., g 1

Gregory that are at issue in this case. In taking advantage of~ j l

my client's misfortune to insure that no finding'of harassment i and intimidation was.is' sued by the DOL, and that:Ms. Gregory would not. pursue her claim of illegal termination-in-any other [.j forum, Brown & Root and'all of'the other beneficiaries ~ profited l from Ms. Gregory's' personal: catastrophe. g, k

50. I am mindful that Brown & Rookwere legally'within their bounds when they negotiated the settlement, and that Bruce Downey personally went'beyond the actions required of him to. meet-the professional obligations of his clients to assist-Ms.

Gregory, and I am not unappreciat'ive of that reality. j Nonetheless, I'believe that but for Ms. Gregory's' intolerable' choice she would have prevailed on the merits-of her-claim, and that the consequences for those workers.who do challenge Brown &

Root are graphically-demonstrated--by this' example, r

i b Ct BILLIE PIRNER GARDE-Subscribed and sworn-to me thisc ISS.l day of /. / - ,

1987.

..l

.- s

, "' ' fu , , , l, . , ,

\

Notary Public / 'i ' j i

<,c....;..n..m w se,e,fir i

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _