Generational Buildings, LLC

Plain-English summary

Generational Buildings timely contested a four-item serious citation and timely answered the Secretary's complaint. Eight days after the case was assigned, the judge issued a show-cause order because the small self-represented company had not registered for the Commission's electronic filing system or requested a hardship exemption. When the company did not respond, the judge dismissed its contest and affirmed $21,844 in proposed penalties. The Commission found dismissal too harsh because it was unclear whether the three-employee company received or understood the phone messages, it had already participated by filing an answer, the record did not show contumacy or a pattern of disregard, and the Secretary claimed no prejudice. The default was set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The remand order does not identify the standards underlying the four serious items.
• Outcome: Dismissal and default set aside; case remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: A single early failure by a self-represented small employer to register for electronic filing does not justify dismissal without evidence of contumacy, prejudice, or repeated disregard.

Full text (OSHRC public release)


Document

United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20 th
Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC Docket No.
21 - 0447

GENERATIONAL BUILDINGS ,
LLC ,

Respondent.

REMAND ORDER

Before: ATTWOOD, Chairman and
LAIHOW , Commissioner.

BY THE COMMISSION:

On
October
13 , 20 21 , Administrative Law Judge
Patrick B. Augustine
issued a n order of dismissal
based on the failure of
Generational Buildings ,
LLC , appearing pro se,
to
register
with
the Commission’s Electronic Filing System (EFS)
and
respond to
a n Order to Show Cause . For the reasons that
follow, we set aside the judge’s decision and remand this case for further proceedings in a manner consistent with this o rder .

BACKGROUND

Following an inspection
on January 8, 2021 , the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued
Generational Buildings
a
four -item serious citation
with a proposed penalty of $2 1 ,8 44 . B oth parties filed timely pleadings :
the Secretary filed the complaint on July 6, 2021 ,
and Respondent filed the answer on July 20, 2021 .

T he case was
assigned
to the judge
on August 17, 2021 . The
Notice of Assignment
issued to the parties
include s
a
document titled
“Important Notice”
that
inform s
the m
of the requirement to comply with Commission Rule 8(c), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.8(c) , which
mandates that all document s
be filed
electronically
using
the
Commission’s
EFS . A
self-represented part y, however, “ may submit a written statement to the Judge requesting an exemption from the mandatory e-filing requirement on the grounds that it would place an undue
burden on them to comply with the requirement.” Commission Rule 8(c)(2), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.8(c)(2) .

Sometime b etween August 17
(the date of assignment)
and August 25, 2021
(the
issuance
date of the Order to Show Cause) , the judge’s Legal Assistant twice called
Generational Building s ’
office to remind
the company
of the need to register with and use the Commission’s EFS to file all documents ,
and to offer any assistance in
doing so . T he first time, the Legal Assistant left a message on
the company’s
business number, and the second time, the Legal Assistant spoke with
a n unnamed
person
who
said
that
they
would
pass the
message on . Generational Buildings
did not respond to
either of these
messages , nor did it register with the EFS .

On August 25, 2021,
eight
days
after the Notice of Assignment was issued ,
the judge
issued
an Order to Show Cause
giving the company 14 days
to file an explanation as to why it had failed to register with the EFS or seek an exemption based on undue hardship, and, if not seeking an exemption, to register or risk
dismissal
in favor of the Secretary . See
Commission Rule 101(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(a) ( judge may declare party in default for failing to plead or otherwise proceed as required after giving party opportunity to show cause) .
After
Generational Buildings
failed to respond to
the
show cause order , the judge
issued the order
dismiss ing
the company’s notice of contest and affirm ing
the citation . Generational Buildings, now represented by counsel,
has
timely
filed a
petition
with the Commission
seeking review of the judge’s decision .

DISCUSSION

“Whether dismissal is appropriate in any situation depends on whether a party’s behavior demonstrates contumacy, whether the othe r party
suffered
prejudice , and whether other aggravating circumstances were present.” Caterpillar, Inc. , 17 BNA OSHC 1507, 1509 (No. 9 4 -347, 1996) (citations omitted) .
Here, the judge
found
that
the company’s “ repeated failures to engage in the litigation process illustrate a pattern of disregard for the Commission’s proceedings as well as contumacious conduct. ”

Specifically, the judge stated that Generational Buildings was “ given multiple opportunities and plenty of time to comply with Commission Rules of Procedure and this Court’s Notice and Order, and the Court has yet to receive any communication or contact from Respondent. ”

N ot ing
that the case h ad
been pending for
“nearly three
months , ”
the judge found
that the delay caused by the
company’s
failure to register
with
the EFS
was
attributable to
Generational Buildings
alone
since
it
wa s self-represented .

W e find that
dismissal is too harsh of a sanction under the circumstances of this case .
Architectural Glass & Metal Co. , 19 BNA OSHC 1546, 1547 (No. 00-0389, 2001) (“Although a judge has very broad discretion in imposing sanctions for noncompliance with Commission Rules of Procedure or his own orders, the judge must not impose a sanction that is too harsh under the circumstances of the case.”) The record shows that t he judge
gave
this pro se Respondent
only eight days after
the
Notice of Assignment
was issued to either register
with the EFS
or seek an exe m ption
before issuing an Order to Show Cause threat ening
dismissal. 1
While the judge’s office did make two attempts in the span of a week to contact Generational Builders about the
EFS
requirement, it is unclear whether the company—which , according to its notice of contest,
consists of
three
employees—ever received those messages or otherwise
understood the need to
immediately
register with the EFS . I t
would have been
reasonable
for the judge
to provide
the company , as a small employer,
with
more than a few days to respond to the Legal Assistant’s phone calls .
Indeed,
the Commission
has
consistently
made
“allowances for
pro se
employers who have failed, through ignorance of our rules and of legal procedures, to comply with its procedural requirements . ”
Sealtite
Corp. , 15 BNA OSHC 1130, 1133 (No. 88-1431, 1991)
(citations omitted) .
Here, r ather than move to issue a
show cause
o rder ,
the judge could have issued an
interim
o rder
highlighting the
registration
requirement and explaining that as a self-represented party , t he company
could request a n exemption due to
hardship.

We also find that the shortcomings identified by the judge in
support of
his
dismissal
do not support a finding of contumacy or a pattern of disregard for Commission proceedings,
particularly where
Generational Builders
was in fact participating in the case, as evidenced by its timely filed answer . C ompare
Jessica Hicks , 25 BNA OSHC 2227,
2228
(No. 16-0757, 2016) (dismissal too harsh
when judge’s finding of contumacy
rested
solely on
pro se respondent’s
single failure to respond to show cause order);
Tom Reed Contracting , 25 BNA OSHC 1649,
1650
(No. 14-1659 , 2015 ) (default
set aside and conduct
found
not contumacious whe n
pro se
respondent failed to file answer and respond to second show cause order but responded to first show cause order with
request for rescheduling due to
serious
medical condition);
Heave Ho Crane Co. , 24 BNA OSHC 2058,
2060-61
(No. 14-0250 , 2014 ) (default
set aside
and conduct
found
not contumacious whe n
pro se
respondent failed to file required position statement and confer with Secretary
but explained that
response to show cause order was not in affidavit form as stipulated because of internet issues)
with
Phila .
Constr. Equip . , Inc. , 16 BNA OSHC 1128,
1130-31
(No.
92-899 , 1993) (finding a pattern of disregard where
pro se
respondent consistently did not respond until it received orders threatening dismissal or default, failed to appear for a hearing, and appeared late at a reinstatement hearing);
Sealtite
Corp. , 15 BNA
OSHC
at
1134
(finding
pro se
respondent in default
after
lengthy
pattern of
non compl iance
with Commission rules and the judge’s orders) .

In addition,
we note that
the Secretary has not claimed any prejudice by the company’s failure to register with the EFS or respond to the judge’s show cause order .

Under these circumstances , we set aside the judge’s decision and remand the case for further proceedings. 2
See
Commission Rule 101(b);
29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(b) (motion to set aside sanctions) .

SO
ORDERED.

/s/               

Cynthia L. Attwood

Chairman

/s/               

Amanda Wood Laihow

Dated: December 2,
2021             Commissioner

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

721 19 th
Street, Room 407

Denver, Colorado 80202-2517

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

GENERATIONAL BUILDINGS, LLC

Respondent.

OSHRC DOCKET NO. 21-0447

Attorneys and Parties:

Boyce N. Richardson, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Kansas City, MO

For Complainant

Melvin Troyer, Self-Represented Litigant, Jamesport, MO

For Respondent

JUDGE: First Judge Patrick B. Augustine, United States Administrative Law Judge

DECISION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101

Procedural History

This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651
et seq . (Act). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted an inspection of a Generational Buildings, LLC (Respondent) worksite at 3823 N. Cobbler Rd., Independence, MO on January 8, 2021. As a result of the inspection, OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (Citation) to Respondent alleging four serious violations of the Act with a proposed penalty of $21,844.00. The Citation was issued on March 9, 2021. Respondent timely filed a notice of contest ( Notice of Contest) .

This case was designated to proceed under conventional proceedings of the Commission. The Complaint was filed on July 6, 2021. On July 7, 2021, Respondent filed a communication which the Court deems to be an Answer. On August 17, 2021, Chief Judge Covette Rooney assigned this matter to the Court by entering a
Notice of Assignment of Review Commission Judge
(Assignment Notice). Attached to the Assignment Notice was documentation titled as an Important Notice in which Respondent was informed of the requirement to comply with Commission Rule 8(c), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.8(c). 3
Commission Rule 8(c) 3
requires all parties to register with the Commission’s Electronic Filing System (EFS) and to file all pleadings and documents through the EFS. The Rule also has a provision notifying self-represented litigants (such as Respondent in this case) that it may seek an exemption from complying with the EFS requirements by filing a written statement, supported by facts, explaining that complying with the EFS requirements would place an undue burden upon it. Commission Rule 8(c)(2) sets forth the procedures for filing the request for exemption based on undue burden.

Upon the Court receiving this case, the Court’s Legal Assistant twice called Respondent’s office to remind Respondent of the need to register with and use the Commission’s EFS to file all documents and to offer any assistance in registering. The Legal Assistant once left a message on the business number of Respondent. On a second occasion, the Legal Assistant spoke with a woman who answered the telephone who indicated she would take a message and pass it on. No messages were received from Respondent from the telephone outreach.

On August 25, 2021, the Court entered an
Order to Show Cause
in which Respondent was placed on notice that its Notice of Contest could be dismissed, and the Citation affirmed. The Court specifically laid out in the
Order to Show Cause
that unless Respondent registered with the EFS
or
filed a written statement seeking an exemption based on undue hardship that its failure to take one of the above actions could result in the Court dismissing its Notice of Contest
and affirming the Citation.

The
Order to Show Cause
was sent certified United States mail, return receipt requested, as required under Commission Rules. Commission Rule 7(o)(2), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.7(o)(2). The
Order to Show Cause
was signed for and received by a representative of Respondent on September 2, 2021. As of the date of this Decision and Order, Respondent has not: (i) responded to the
Order to Show Cause ; (ii) registered with the Commission’s EFS; or (iii) filed a written statement with the Court seeking an exemption based on undue hardship.

Jurisdiction

The
Commission has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act due to the filing of a
Notice of Contest
by Respondent. 29 U.S.C. § 659(c).

Controlling Case Law

The Commission has held that “[w]here it is highly probable that a case will be appealed to a particular circuit, the Commission generally has applied the precedent of that circuit in deciding the case— even though it may differ from the Commission's precedent.”
Kerns Bros. Tree Serv. , 18 BNA OSHC 2064, 2067 (No. 96-1719, 2000). The Court applies the precedent of the Eighth Circuit where it differs from the Commission in deciding this case.

Although the Commission recognizes the difficulties a self-represented litigant may face when participating in the Commission’s proceedings, the Commission still requires the self-represented litigant to follow the rules and exercise reasonable diligence in the legal proceedings in which it is taking part.
Sealtite
Corp ., 15 BNA OSHC 1130 (No. 88-1431, 1991). An unrepresented employer must “exercise reasonable diligence in the legal proceedings” and “must follow the rules and file responses to a judge's orders, or suffer the consequences, which can include dismissal of the notice of contest.”
Wentzel d/b/a N.E.E.T. Builders , 16 BNA OSHC 1475, 1476 (No. 92-2696, 1993) (citations omitted).

Discussion

Commission Rule 101(a) provides:

When any party has failed to plead or otherwise proceed as provided by these rules or as required by the Commission or Judge, he may be declared to be in default either on the initiative of the Commission or the Judge, after having been afforded an opportunity to show cause why he should not be declared in default
. . . .
Thereafter, the Commission or Judge, in their discretion, may enter a decision against the defaulting party
. . . .

This is a case of first impression since no Commission case law exists on the question of whether the failure of a Respondent to register in the EFS after Court orders to do so may result in dismissal of Respondent’s Notice of Contest and an affirmance of the Citation. Also, as noted above, Respondent has been provided an opportunity to show cause why it should not be held in default and failed to respond to the Court’s Assignment Notice entered on August 17, 2021, and the Court’s
Order to Show Cause
issued on August 25, 2021.

Federal Court’s Holdings on Failure to Register

While no Commission case law exists on the question presented, federal courts have ruled on this issue. Federal courts, who have addressed the issue, have done so under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”).

Dial v. Mix , No. 3-19CV-1864 N-BK, 2019 WL 6702656 (N.D.
Tex, Oct. 30, 2019) presented largely the same facts before that court as in this case. The federal district court advised Dial, a pro-se litigant, of the Court’s requirement to register and use the court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) and she failed to do so. The federal court extended the deadline for registering and in that order advised that Dial’s failure to comply may result in the dismissal of the case for want of prosecution under Rule 41(b). Dial never complied and the court dismissed the case.

The
Dial
Court stated as follows:

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action
sua
sponte
for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order.
Larson v. Scott , 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delay in the disposition of pending cases.”
Boudwin
v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd ., 756 F. 2d 399, 401 (5th Cir.
1985)(citing
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).

Generally, such dismissal is without prejudice. However, when, as here, a Rule 41(b) dismissal is tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice the court is required to apply a higher standard of review.
Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA , 975 F.2d. 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992).
In that instance, a court may dismiss for want of prosecution only when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. In applying this higher standard, the court must find “at least one of three aggravating factors: (1) delay caused by a party himself and not his attorney; (2) actual prejudice to the other party; or (3) delay caused by intentional conduct.”
Id. see also
Nottingham v. Warden Bill Clements Unit,
837 F.3d 438, 441 (5th Cir.
2016)(same).

The
Dial
Court found the requisites were met and dismissed the case. The court noted the case had been pending for nearly three months, and despite the issuance of two orders, Dial had failed to comply with the court’s directive to register for electronic filing or demonstrate cause as to why she should be excused from the registration requirement. In addition, Dial had failed to comply with a show cause order issued by that court and failed to keep the court informed of her current address. The court stated these actions were attributable to Ms. Dial alone. The court concluded, considering the foregoing conduct of Ms. Dial, no lesser sanction will prompt diligent prosecution of the case. Indeed, the court noted, the case cannot proceed further absent Dial’s registration for electronic filing.
See also
McKeller
v. LVNV Funding, LLC. , No. 3:20-CV-3065-M-BK ,2021 WL 3625078 (D. Tex. July 7,
2021)(failure to file an amended complaint and register to use the electronic filing system resulted in dismissal);
Harris v. Comm’r of Social Security,
No. CIV-S-09-2336 GGH, 2009 WL 5206035 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2009)(failure to register and use electronic filing system resulted in sanctions).

Commission Rule 101 and Failure to Register

The Court notes similarities between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Commission Rule 101. Both permit sanctions for failure to follow a rule or an order of the court. Both have provisions for show cause procedures. Both require an evaluation of factors and affirm a dismissal of an action upon the of finding of contumacious conduct, prejudice or a pattern of disregarding rules and orders.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Commission Rule 101, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101. Therefore, the Court finds Commission Rule 101, closely tracking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), is written in broad enough terms that it provides the remedy for a party’s failure to comply with Commission Rule 8(c) which requires parties to register with and use the Commission’s EFS.

According to the Commission, “[D] ismissal
is too harsh a sanction for failure to comply with certain pre-hearing orders unless the record shows contumacious conduct by the noncomplying party, prejudice to the opposing party, or a pattern of disregard for Commission proceedings.”
Amsco , Inc. , No. 02-0220, 2003 WL 25548066, (O.S.H.R.C., Feb.12, 2003) 19 BNA OSHC 2189, 2191 (No. 02-0220, 2003). See also
Sealtite
Corp. , 15 BNA OSHC 1130 (No. 88-1431, 1991) (contumacious conduct established where party engaged in a “consistent pattern” of failure to respond to judge’s orders).

The term
“contumacious conduct”
has not been defined in the Act or Commission Rules. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “contumacious” is conduct which is “stubbornly disobedient: rebellious.” 3
Commission precedent makes it clear that an undefined term’s meaning can be determined by consulting a contemporaneous dictionary. See, e.g., Fla. Gas Contractors, Inc. , No 14-0948, 2019 WL 995716, at *3 (O.S.H.R.C., Feb. 21,
2019)(determining term’s meaning by first turning to dictionary in absence of a definition in standard);
see also Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson
Cty . , 555 U. S. 271, 276 (2009) (undefined term “carries its ordinary meaning”). In conclusion, the trial judge has great discretion in determining the facts to the ordinary meaning to determine whether the conduct engaged into by a party is contumacious.”
Fox v. Vice , 563 U.S. 826 (2011) (recognizing trial courts have wide discretion in fact finding).

Therefore,
applying ordinary meaning to the term
“contumacious conduct,” default judgments may be appropriate when a party fails to comply with an order under 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(a) (default appropriate when a party fails to proceed as provided by the Commission Rules or as required by a judge).
S ee also St. Lawrence Food Corp ., 21 BNA OSHC 1467, 1472 (Nos. 04-1734 & 04-1735, 2006) (failing to comply with Commission Rules and orders to delay proceedings has been determined to be contumacious conduct.)

Findings

As stated previously, Commission Rule 101 is broad enough in its language and is the appropriate vehicle to address sanctions for parties who do not register in the EFS or seek an exemption due to undue hardship.

The Court finds Respondent’s repeated failures to engage in the litigation process illustrate a pattern of disregard for the Commission’s proceedings as well as contumacious conduct. Respondent has been given multiple opportunities and plenty of time to comply with Commission Rules of Procedure and this Court’s Notice and
Order , and the Court has yet to receive any communication or contact from Respondent. The Court finds the delays in this case are wholly attributable to Respondent, including Respondent’s failure to respond to the Assignment Notice and the
Order to Show
Cause
which were sent to the address that it specifically provided, and which were not returned as undelivered.

The Court has a need to manage its docket and to do so in a timely manner which promotes public policy. This case has been pending before the Court for nearly three months, and despite telephone calls from the Court to assist Respondent in registering, the issuance of an Assignment Notice and an
Order to Show Cause , Respondent has failed to comply with Commission Rule 8(c) and the Court’s
Order to Show Cause
to register and use the EFS or demonstrate cause why the registration would cause an undue hardship. Because Respondent is representing itself the failure to comply, and the delay caused by such failure is attributable to Respondent alone.
Berry , 975 F.2d at 1191.

Considering the above conduct of Respondent which is intentional, and the reasons stated below, no lesser sanction will prompt diligent prosecution of this case by Respondent. Indeed, as previously stated, the case cannot proceed further absent Respondent’s EFS registration. Given the time the Court has provided Respondent to register in the EFS or seek an exemption with no fruitful activity or response, the Court finds that any further delay will result in actual prejudice to Complainant.

The Court has gone beyond the traditional parameters established by the Commission in past Rule 101 holdings by evaluating: (i) the facts of this matter; (ii) the ramifications to public policy and docket management; (iii) the prejudice of further delay; (iv) the inability for this case to proceed forward absent compliance with Commission Rule 8(c); (v) where the fault lays; and (vi) the intentional nature of Respondent’s actions.
Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA , 975 F.2d. 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992).
See also Nottingham v. Warden Bill Clements Unit,
837 F.3d 438, 441 (5th Cir. 2016)
For the reasons stated, the Court finds Respondent’s pattern of disregard for the Commission’s proceedings and its failure to comply with its Order and Assignment Notice issued by the Court constitutes contumacious conduct warranting the sanction of dismissal of Respondent’s
Notice of Contest .

Alternatively, the Court finds the Court has conveyed due notice to Respondent of its procedural rights and provided ample warning that its failure to comply with Court orders may result in the dismissal of its
Notice of Contest . At every instance, Respondent has failed to take advantage of the opportunity to advise the Court that it has not abandoned its case before the Court. Every indication before the Court is that Respondent has walked away from its contest. Under these circumstances, the Court sees no worthwhile purpose in allowing this case to proceed to a hearing when there is no basis to believe that Respondent will fulfill its pre-hearing obligations or appear at the hearing.
See Twin Pines Constr. Inc./ Teles
Constr. , 24 BNA OSHC 1500, 1504 (No. 12-1328, 2012) (No worthwhile purpose in proceeding to a hearing where a party has abandoned the case). The Court finds that Respondent relinquished its case with the intent to abandon. 1 C.J.S. Abandonment § 13 (2013).
See also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Accordingly, under the circumstances contained herein, the Court should exercise its sound discretion to DISMISS Respondent’s
Notice of Contest
even if limitations may prevent further adjudication of Respondent’s claims or defenses.
See Nottingham,
837 F.3d at 441 (finding no abuse of discretion when district court applied higher standard of review and dismissed
pro se
action due to intentional noncompliance with court orders). The violations and penalties alleged in the Citation and Notification of Penalty are AFFIRMED in its entirety and penalties ASSESSED.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:

1. Citation 1, Item 1, issued as a Serious Citation and the corresponding penalty of $5,461.00, are hereby AFFIRMED as final orders of the Commission pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act.

2. Citation 1, Item 2, issued as a Serious Citation and the corresponding penalty of $5,461.00, are hereby AFFIRMED as final orders of the Commission pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act.

3. Citation 1, Item 3, issued as a Serious Citation and the corresponding penalty of $5,461.00, are hereby AFFIRMED as final orders of the Commission pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act.

4. Citation 1, Item 4, issued as a Serious Citation and the corresponding penalty of $5,461.00, are hereby AFFIRMED as final orders of the Commission pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act.

SO
ORDERED.

Date:
October 26, 2021   

/s/ Patrick B. Augustine

Denver, Colorado   



   Patrick B. Augustine

First Judge, OSHRC

"

1
Of note,
the
certified mail receipt sent with the
Order to Show Cause was
signed on September 2, 2021, which
means
it took eight days for Generational Buildings to receive that order after
its
issuance .

If
mail
in th e company’s
region
operates at a consistent pace, it
seems
entirely possibl e
that Generational Buildings had just barely received the Notice of Assignment at the time the judge issued the Order to Show Cause.

2
Now that Generational Buildings is represented by counsel, it can no longer seek an exemption from the EFS based on hardship and must register
to
file all documents using the system . Commission Rule 8(c); 29 C.F.R. § 2200.8(c).

1
The Commission’s EFS is not a new creature to the Commission or courts. The implementation of the EFS follows from the evaluation of implemented electronic filing filings systems in federal courts and other federal adjudicatory agencies. Much thought was given to the needs of attorneys and self-represented litigants in creating a workable EFS for the Commission.

2
Commission Rule 8(c), which requires all parties to register with the Commission’s EFS, became effective on June 10, 2019. Rules of Procedure, 84 Fed. Reg. 14554 (April 10, 2019). Technical Amendments, 85 Fed. Reg. 65220 (October 15, 2020) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 2200).

3
The link between
contumacious
and the law goes back to Latin. The Latin adjective
contumax
means “rebellious,” or, in specific cases, “showing contempt of court.”
Contumacious
is related to
contumely , meaning “harsh language or treatment arising from, haughtiness and contempt.” See “Contumacious.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contumacious .