The current Amentum-led environmental prime, and its predecessor, deny violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, or government whistleblower protections, connected with the firing of a worker at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Site in Tennessee.
The nuclear cleanup contractor is the target of a wrongful termination and whistleblower case brought by Christopher Hicks. The Amentum-led prime filed its reply to Hicks’ litigation on May 15.
Defendant United Cleanup Oak Ridge, made up of Amentum and Jacobs and Honeywell, doing business as UCOR, is the successor to another UCOR made up of just Amentum and Jacobs. In May 2022 the new UCOR undertook the new DOE $8.3 billion Oak Ridge Reservation cleanup contract from the original UCOR. Ken Rueter is the CEO of both the current and former versions of UCOR.
Hicks was fired by UCOR in April 2019, roughly 18 months after suffering a work-related back injury that forced him into lighter duty at the Oak Ridge Site. On that much, the parties agree.
UCOR, however, said Hicks does not have a disability that protects him under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The contractor also denies Hicks’ allegations his employer retaliated against him for reporting alleged health and safety problems at Oak Ridge. Hicks alleges he was the victim of retaliation in violation of the National Defense Authorization Act’s Enhancement of Contractor Protection from Reprisal for Disclosure of Certain Information.
The original UCOR “admits that it provided light duty assignments to Hicks in an effort to accommodate his work restrictions for a period of approximately 18 months,” according to the recent filing.
UCOR 1 and UCOR 2, as they are referred to in the May 15 filing, also denied having “a policy, pattern, and practice of refusing to hire and/or firing individuals who need or request accommodations for physical impairments, disabilities, or medical restrictions.”
The Amentum-led contractors also claim Hicks’ litigation was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations.
“Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and, therefore, should be dismissed,” according to the defense motion.
