Administrative Review Board Decisions

The following case summaries were created by the Administrative Review Board staff.

Lewis v. Deepwell Energy Services, LLC, ARB Nos. 2025-0037, -0039, -0051, ALJ No. 2024-STA-00042 (ARB Apr. 23, 2025) (Order of Consolidation and Denying Petitions for Interlocutory Review)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW; COLLATERAL ORDER EXCEPTION; INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW OF ALJ’S RULINGS; STANDARDS OF CONDUCT BY PARTIES

In Lewis v. Deepwell Energy Services, LLC, ARB Nos. 2025-0037, -0039, -0051, ALJ No. 2024-STA-00042 (ARB Apr. 23, 2025), the ARB denied Complainant's petitions for review because Complainant failed to meet the requirements for interlocutory review.

On December 15, 2024, before the ALJ, Complainant filed a Motion for Summary Decision (MSD). Complainant then filed several revisions and supplements to the MSD in quick succession. On January 6, 2025, the ALJ issued a Procedural Order Limiting Further Filings Relative to Complainant's Motion for Summary Decision in which the ALJ observed Complainant did not seek leave to amend or supplement the MSD, noted the ALJ accepted the new filings, and advised Complainant that he was not permitted to submit any further filings in support of the MSD.

On January 23, 2025, the ALJ issued a Ruling on Complainant's Motion for Summary Decision (Summary Decision Ruling) denying Complainant's revised MSD because he failed to establish that there were no genuine issues of disputed fact.

Complainant sought reconsideration of the Summary Decision Ruling, but only as to Respondent's asserted reasons for terminating Complainant's employment. The ALJ directed Respondent to file any affidavits it considered appropriate, and Respondent subsequently filed an affidavit of an employee. In response, Complainant filed a motion to respond to the affidavit and to submit more documents in support of his MSD. The ALJ issued an order denying Complainant's motion for leave to submit additional documents in support of the MSD (Order Denying Motion for Leave).

Approximately one hour after the ALJ issued the Order Denying Motion for Leave, Complainant attempted to file other documents in support of his MSD. OALJ notified Complainant that it did not accept the filings because they were submitted after the Order Denying Motion for Leave. In response, Complainant filed a second motion for reconsideration asking the ALJ to reconsider the Order Denying Motion for Leave. On February 18, 2025, the ALJ issued an Order Denying Complainant's Second Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, Complainant moved the ALJ to certify an interlocutory appeal of the ALJ's Order Denying Motion for Leave and Order Denying Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration. The ALJ denied the motion.

On February 24, 2025, Complainant filed his first petition for interlocutory review with the ARB seeking review of the ALJ's Order Denying Motion for Leave and Order Denying Complainant's Second Motion for Reconsideration. Then, on March 3, 2025, Complainant filed his second petition for interlocutory review with the ARB seeking review of the ALJ's Order Denying Certification of Interlocutory Review. While the ARB was considering these petitions for interlocutory review, Complainant submitted several other filings. The ARB considered and interpreted one of these filings—a motion to rule on the MSD and/or alternatively disqualify the presiding ALJ—as a third petition for interlocutory appeal. 

When a party seeks interlocutory review of an ALJ's non-final order, the ARB has elected to look to the interlocutory review procedures used by federal courts, including requesting the trial court certify issues involving a controlling question of law for immediate appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Complainant did not receive ALJ certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) in this case.

If a party has failed to obtain ALJ certification, the ARB may still consider reviewing an interlocutory order that meets the "collateral order" exception. To fall within the "collateral order" exception, the order appealed must: (1) conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action; and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

The ARB denied the first and second petitions for interlocutory review because the appealed orders were not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The ARB denied the third petition for interlocutory review because the issues Complainant raised would resolve the merits of the action and/or may be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment. Accordingly, Complainant's petitions for interlocutory review did not meet the "collateral order" exception.

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT BY THE PARTIES

The ARB also took the opportunity to address the parties' conduct during the proceedings below. The ARB noted that both parties engaged in dilatory and contemptuous behavior that interfered with the judicial process. The ARB directed the parties to comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges and warned that failure to comply may result in sanctions.

Tyson v. R.E. Garrison Trucking, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0041, ALJ No. 2024-STA-00043 (ARB Apr. 7, 2025) (Order of Administrative Closure)

ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE; FAILURE TO FILE A TIMELY PETITION FOR REVIEW; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARB ORDER

In Tyson v. R.E. Garrison Trucking, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0041, ALJ No. 2024-STA-00043, the ARB ordered that the matter be administratively closed.

On February 25, 2025, an ALJ issued an Order Dismissing Case for Failure to Prosecute and Comply with Court Orders (D. & O.). Under 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a), a party can seek review of an ALJ decision by "fil[ing] a written petition for review with the" ARB "within 14 days of the date of the decision of the ALJ." Accordingly, Complainant had until March 11, 2025, to file a timely petition for review with the ARB.

On March 11, 2025, Complainant filed a Motion for Extension with the ARB, requesting an extension to file a petition for review of the D. & O. by "March 14, 2025." On March 13, 2025, the ARB issued an Order Granting Complainant's Motion for Extension (Extension Order), allowing Complainant until March 14, 2025 to file a petition for review. However, the ARB "cautioned that no further requests for an extension of time will be granted."

Complainant did not file a petition for review by March 14, 2025, as required by the ARB's Extension Order. Given Complainant's failure to comply with the ARB's Extension Order and the requirement to file a petition for review under 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a), the Board ordered that the matter be administratively closed.