Christenson v. The Orvis Company, Inc. (Board decision, August 4, 2016)

Plain-English summary

David Christenson sought Board review in a case against The Orvis Company. The Board set a deadline for his opening brief and warned that failing to meet it could lead to dismissal. Christenson did not file the brief. The Board then ordered him to explain why the appeal should remain open, but he did not respond. Treating the appeal as abandoned, the Board dismissed it without addressing the underlying complaint.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: The opinion cites Link v. Wabash and two Board decisions on dismissal for failure to follow briefing orders.
• Outcome: Appeal dismissed as abandoned; the underlying complaint was not decided.
• Key point: The Board may dismiss an appeal when a party ignores its briefing schedule and a later order to show cause.

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:

DAVID CHRISTENSON,
ARB CASE NO. 16-073

COMPLAINANT,
ALJ CASE NO. 2016-SOX-021

v. DATE: August 4, 2016

THE ORVIS COMPANY, INC.,

RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

On June 27, 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 July 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 20, 2016, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Christenson to demonstrate why the Board should not dismiss his appeal for failure to file an opening brief. The Board warned him that failure to timely respond to the order could result in the dismissal of his appeal without further order. Nevertheless Christenson 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 expeditious disposition of cases.” 1 This Board has authority to issue sanctions, including P0F P

1
Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962).

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 1
 dismissal, for a party’s failure to comply with the Board’s orders and briefing requirements. 2
P1 F

Accordingly, because Christenson 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

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