On This Page

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.

Definition of

  • 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).
  • Pilot who was based at Hanger 481, a DOE facility, and was employed by Ross Aviation, Inc., the DOE contractor at that site, was a DOE contractor employee who flew to various DOE sites to transport personnel and cargo pursuant to a contract between DOE and Ross Aviation, and was not merely delivering goods to DOE facilities.  EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20230103-50027853-2 (Dep’t of Labor, June 27, 2023).
Back to Top

Employees of other federal agencies

Back to Top

Employees of state agencies