Alden v. AECOM Technology Corporation

Background

On April 14, 2021, the court granted Defendant AECOM Technology Corporation’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in AECOM’s favor. Alden later filed motions asking the court to reconsider parts of that summary-judgment order and an order denying his request for a temporary stay. The earlier stay order denied a stay but granted Alden a 30-day extension to file a notice of appeal and a seven-day extension to file post-judgment motions.

Legal standard

The court treated the motions as motions to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), because they were filed within the applicable period, including the extension for post-judgment motions. For completeness, the court also considered the arguments under Rule 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, or another extraordinary reason. Rule 59(e) generally cannot be used to present arguments or evidence that could reasonably have been presented earlier.

Reconsideration of the summary-judgment order

Alden challenged the court’s conclusion that he had not reported the alleged wrongdoing to a person or entity authorized to receive complaints under the 2008 Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act. He argued that his complaints involved not only NASA employee Tony Wong but also concerned Wong, and that he had reported the matter to the NASA Ombudsman.

The court rejected the first argument because Alden had not made it in his opposition to summary judgment, even though AECOM had relied substantially on a prior case involving similar alleged disclosures. The court found that Alden had not shown that the relevant facts were unavailable when he opposed summary judgment.

The court also rejected the ombudsman argument. Alden relied on a November 1, 2009 email to Wong that copied the NASA Ombudsman’s email address. But his pleadings and summary-judgment opposition had relied on his complaints to Wong, and the same email had already been submitted with his opposition. Alden acknowledged that focusing on Wong had been a tactical decision. The court therefore found no basis for reconsideration under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).

The court further noted that its earlier summary-judgment ruling had an additional, independent basis: the 2008 Act’s protection against retaliation did not apply to whistleblower complaints about gross mismanagement of NASA contracts, such as the complaint at issue. Alden’s reconsideration motion did not challenge that conclusion.

Reconsideration of the stay order

Alden argued that the seven-day extension for post-judgment motions was insufficient. He said he needed more time to provide evidence that his complaints concerned safety rather than only waste and to address the law, legislative intent, and authorities discussed by AECOM and the court.

The court found no basis to reconsider the stay order. It stated that the issues Alden wanted to raise had already been presented in AECOM’s summary-judgment motion and that Alden had requested a seven-day extension if the court denied his stay request. The court also recognized evidence that Alden had been injured in an April 6, 2021 accident, but did not find that circumstance sufficient to change the stay ruling.

Disposition

The court denied Alden’s motion for reconsideration of the summary-judgment order and denied his motion for reconsideration of the stay order. Both motions were denied.