Edna Fordham v. United States Department of Labor, No. 21-1899 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1899 EDNA D. FORDHAM, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; MARTY J. WALSH, Secretary, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Labor. (2021-0029) Submitted: January 13, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023 Before AGEE, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Thad M. Guyer, Stephani L. Ayers, T.M. GUYER AND AYERS & FRIENDS, PC, Medford, Oregon, for Petitioner. Seema Nanda, Solicitor of Labor, Jennifer S. Brand, Associate Solicitor, Maria Van Buren, Acting Deputy Associate Solicitor, Megan E. Guenther, Counsel for Whistleblower Programs, Meron T. Kebede, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edna Fordham petitions for review of an order of the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board dismissing her appeal from the Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying her complaint that her former employer, Fannie Mae, violated her rights under the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings and that substantial evidence supports the denial of Fordham’s complaint for relief. See Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Fordham v. Fannie Mae (ARB July 19, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.