The following case summaries were created by Administrative Review Board staff.
Mack v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., ARB No. 2022-0055, ALJ No. 2017-FRS-00096 (ARB Oct. 11, 2022) (Order of Dismissal)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; APPEAL DISMISSED WHERE COMPLAINANT FILED ORIGINAL ACTION IN DISTRICT COURT
In Mack v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., ARB No. 2022-0055, ALJ No. 2017-FRS-00096 (ARB Oct. 11, 2022), the ARB dismissed Complainant’s administrative complaint because he filed an original de novo complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Wyrick & Sons Pine Straw, ARB No. 2022-0062, ALJ No. 2015-MSP-00001 (ARB Oct. 20, 2022) (Order of Dismissal)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; APPEAL DISMISSED WHERE ADMINISTRATOR DECLINED TO PROSECUTE APPEAL
In Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Wyrick & Sons Pine Straw, ARB No. 2022-0062, ALJ No. 2015-MSP-00001 (ARB Oct. 20, 2022), the ARB had granted the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division an enlargement of time to file an appeal of the ALJ’s decision and order. Ultimately, the Administrator declined to file a petition for review, and the ARB dismissed the appeal.
McDowell v. Eagle Intermodal, Inc., ARB No. 2022-0046, ALJ No. 2020-STA-00054 (ARB Oct. 20, 2022) (Decision and Order Dismissing Petition for Review)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; COMPLAINANT FAILED TO FILE AN OPENING BRIEF AND RESPONSD TO AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
In McDowell v. Eagle Intermodal, Inc., ARB No. 2022-0046, ALJ No. 2020-STA-00054 (ARB Oct. 20, 2022), the ARB dismissed Complainant’s petition for review for failing to timely file an opening brief and for failing to respond to the Board’s Order to Show Cause.
Ramos v. Globant S.A., ARB No. 2022-0042, ALJ No. 2022-SOX-00004 (ARB Oct. 24, 2022) (Order of Dismissal)
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL; CONSEQUENCES OF WITHDRAWAL BEFORE FILING ORIGINAL FEDERAL COMPLAINT
In Ramos v. Globant S.A., ARB No. 2022-0042, ALJ No. 2022-SOX-00004 (ARB Oct. 24, 2022), Complainant requested the ARB’s permission to withdraw his appeal so he could file an original de novo complaint in federal district court. In a preliminary order, the ARB explained to Complainant that he did not require the ARB’s permission to file a federal complaint if he believed the statutory conditions for doing so were satisfied.
Subsequently, when Complainant did not file either an opening brief with the ARB or an original federal complaint, the ARB issued an Order to Show Cause instructing Complainant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. In response, Complainant asked to withdraw his administrative complaint so he could file a federal complaint. However, Complainant also expressed that he did not intend to file a federal complaint before withdrawing his administrative complaint.
The ARB issued a notice again advising Complainant that he did not need to the ARB’s permission to file a federal complaint. The Board also cautioned Complainant that because de novo review in federal district court may only occur if the Secretary has not yet issued a “final decision,” and because the withdrawal of his appeal with the ARB would render the ALJ’s order the “final order of Secretary,” Complainant may be barred from seeking de novo review of his claim if he withdrew his petition for review before filing a complaint in district court. Accordingly, the ARB declined to immediately grant Complainant’s request to withdraw his appeal, but advised that it would do so in 45 days if he had still not filed a federal complaint.
When the 45-day grace period lapsed, Complainant still had not filed a federal complaint. Accordingly, the ARB granted Complainant’s request to withdraw his petition for review and dismissed his appeal.
Richardson v. BNSF Railway Co., ARB No. 2022-0057, ALJ No. 2022-FRS-00026 (ARB Oct. 26, 2022) (Decision and Order Dismissing Petition for Review)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; COMPLAINANT FAILED TO FILE AN OPENING BRIEF AND RESPONSD TO AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
In Richardson v. BNSF Railway Co., ARB No. 2022-0057, ALJ No. 2022-FRS-00026 (ARB Oct. 26, 2022), the ARB dismissed Complainant’s petition for review for failing to timely file an opening brief and for failing to respond to the Board’s Order to Show Cause.
Trivedi v. General Electric and GE Healthcare, ARB No. 2022-0026, ALJ No. 2022-SOX-00005 (ARB Oct. 28, 2022) (Order Denying Reconsideration)
Order Denying Reconsideration
Complainant requested the Board reconsider its Decision and Order concluding that the Complainant filed an untimely complaint and failed to establish entitlement to equitable tolling. The Board determined that Complainant re-iterated arguments that were previously addressed in the Board’s decision.