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 June 20, 2025) (Order Denying Reconsideration)
RECONSIDERATION; ARB WILL NOT RECONSIDER SAME ARGUMENTS MADE IN ORIGINAL APPEAL
In Lewis v. Deepwell Energy Services, LLC, ARB Nos. 2025-0037, -0039, -0051, ALJ No. 2024-STA-00042 (ARB June 20, 2025), the ARB denied Complainant's request for reconsideration of the ARB's May 19, 2025 Order of Consolidation and Denying Petitions for Interlocutory Review.
The ARB will reconsider a decision only under limited circumstances. In considering whether to reconsider a decision, the ARB considers whether the movant has demonstrated: (i) material differences in fact or law from those presented to the ARB of which the moving party could not have known through reasonable diligence; (ii) new material facts that occurred after the ARB's decision; (iii) a change in the law after the ARB's decision; or (iv) failure to consider material facts presented to the ARB before its decision.
The ARB determined that Complainant's motion did not fall within any of the limited circumstances warranting reconsideration. Complainant alleged that the Board overlooked its precedent in McCurry v. Kenco Logistics Servs., LLC, and that the collateral order exception applied to this matter. The ARB stated it did not overlook McCurry, and assuming arguendo that it erred by not acknowledging McCurry, such error was harmless as Complainant failed to clear his initial procedural hurdle for the ARB to accept and consider a petition for interlocutory appeal—obtain certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or prove that the ALJ's orders met the "collateral order" exception. Upon review of Complainant's motion for reconsideration, he simply repeated arguments that he raised in his three petitions for interlocutory review that the ARB considered and rejected. Thus, the ARB declined to address them again on reconsideration.
Furthermore, the ARB noted that even if Complainant met the collateral order exception, the ARB's decision to accept a petition for interlocutory review is discretionary.
Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. O'Bryan Composting, LLC, ARB No. 2025-0052, ALJ No. 2023-TAE-00005 (ARB June 18, 2025) (Order of Dismissal)
WITHDRAWAL; ORDER APPROVING WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION FOR REVIEW
In Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. O'Bryan Composting, LLC, ARB No. 2025-0052, ALJ No. 2023-TAE-00005 (ARB June 18, 2025), the Administrator requested to withdraw her appeal before the ARB. The ARB granted the request to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.
DeVoe v. Premier Trucking LLC, ARB No. 2025-0056, ALJ No. 2024-STA-00090 (ARB June 17, 2025) (Order of Administrative Closure)
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE; FAILURE TO FILE TIMELY PETITION FOR REVIEW; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARB ORDER
In DeVoe v. Premier Trucking LLC, ARB No. 2025-0056, ALJ No. 2024-STA-00090 (ARB June 17, 2025), the ARB ordered that the matter be administratively closed.
On April 24, 2025, an ALJ issued a Decision and Order Denying Complaint. 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 May 8, 2025, to file a timely petition for review with the ARB.
On May 5, 2025, Complainant requested an extension of time of 60 days to file a petition for review. On May 9, 2025, the ARB issued an Order Granting Complainant's Motion for Extension in Part, allowing Complainant until June 9, 2025, to file a petition for review. However, the ARB cautioned that "[n]o further requests for an extension of time will be granted, and that this matter may be administratively closed without further notice if Complainant does not file a Petition for Review by the deadline."
Complainant did not file a petition for review by June 9, 2025, as required by the ARB's order. Given Complainant's failure to comply with the ARB's order and the requirements to file a petition for review under 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a), the ARB ordered that the matter be administratively closed.
Kudigram v. Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, ARB No. 2025-0049, ALJ No. 2024-ERA-00008 (ARB June 10, 2025) (Decision and Order Dismissing Petition for Review)
DISMISSAL; COMPLAINANT FAILED TO FILE A TIMELY OPENING BRIEF AND RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
In Kudigram v. Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, ARB No. 2025-0049, ALJ No. 2024-ERA-00008 (ARB June 10, 2025), the ARB dismissed Complainant's Petition for Review for failure to file an opening brief as ordered by the ARB.
On April 6, 2025, Complainant filed a Petition for Review of the ALJ's Order Granting Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision and Dismissing Case. The ARB issued a briefing order, but Complainant did not file an opening brief. Therefore, on May 16, 2025, the ARB issued an Order to Show Cause ordering Complainant to explain why the ARB should not dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the ARB's order and briefing requirements. Complainant did not respond or file an opening brief. Accordingly, the ARB dismissed the appeal.