Martin McCray v. Automotive Component Carrier, LLC (Board decision, August 4, 2016)

Plain-English summary

Martin McCray appealed an administrative law judge decision in a case against Automotive Component Carrier. The Board set an April 13, 2016 deadline for his opening brief and warned that missing it could lead to dismissal. McCray did not file the brief. The Board then ordered him to explain why the appeal should remain open and warned him again about dismissal. He did not answer, so the Board deemed the appeal abandoned and dismissed it. The order gives no ruling on the merits of his complaint.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: The order cites Board and court decisions on docket management but no statute or regulation by section number.
• Outcome: Appeal dismissed as abandoned after no opening brief or response to the show-cause order.
• Key point: The Board enforced its briefing schedule after warning McCray and giving him a chance to respond.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20210

IN THE MATTER OF:

MARTIN MCCRAY,
ARB CASE NO. 16-050

COMPLAINANT,
ALJ CASE NO. 2011-STA-053

v. DATE: August 4, 2016

AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENT CARRIER,
LLC,

RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

On March 25, 2016, the Administrative Review Board issued a Notice of Appeal and Order Establishing Briefing Schedule in this case. Under the terms of the Order, Complainant’s opening brief was due on or before April 13, 2016. The Board cautioned Complainant that if he failed to timely file his opening brief, the Board could dismiss his petition for review or impose other sanctions.

Complainant did not file an opening brief as ordered. Accordingly, on July 1, 2016, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring McCray to demonstrate why the Board should not dismiss his appeal for failure to file an opening brief. The Board warned McCray that failure to timely respond to the order could result in the dismissal of his appeal without further order. Nevertheless McCray failed to respond to the Board’s Order.

The Board’s authority to effectively manage its docket, including authority to require compliance with Board briefing orders, is necessary to “achieve orderly and

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 1
expeditious disposition of cases.” 1 This Board has authority to issue sanctions, including

dismissal, for a party’s failure to comply with the Board’s orders and briefing requirements. 2

Accordingly, because McCray has failed to respond to the Board’s order to show cause why he failed to file an opening brief, we consider the appeal abandoned and dismiss his appeal.

FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD:

Janet R. Dunlop
General Counsel

NOTE: Questions regarding any case pending before the Board should be directed to
the Board’s Paralegal Specialists:
Telephone: (202) 693-6200
Facsimile: (202) 693-6220

1
Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962).
2
Jessen v. BNSF Railway Co., ARB No. 12-107, ALJ No. 2010-FRS-022 (ARB July 26, 2013). See also Ellison v. Washington Demilitarization Co., ARB No. 08-119, ALJ No.
2005-CAA-009 (ARB Mar. 16, 2009), aff’d sub nom. Ellison v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 09- 13054 (11th Cir. June 17, 2010).

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 2