Shi v. Moog, Inc. (agency decision, March 13, 2020)

Plain-English summary

Charles Shi alleged that a Chinese subsidiary of Moog terminated him for making aviation-safety complaints. The Board had affirmed dismissal because AIR21 does not apply extraterritorially and Shi's case was not a domestic application of the law. It then denied reconsideration. Shi sent another letter asking the Board's judges for answers or explanation and disputing those decisions. The Board denied that request for the reasons in its reconsideration order and identified the judicial-review regulation.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 42121; 29 C.F.R. § 1979.112
• Outcome: The request for answers or further explanation was denied.
• Key point: After denying reconsideration of an AIR21 decision, the Board may direct a dissatisfied party to seek timely judicial review rather than provide further explanation.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001

In the Matter of:


CHARLES SHI,                                    ARB CASE NO. 2017-0072

             COMPLAINANT,                       ALJ CASE NO. 2016-AIR-00020

      v.                                        DATE: March 13, 2020

MOOG INC., AIRCRAFT GROUP,

             RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
      Charles Shi; pro se; Shanghai, China

For the Respondent:
      Robert J. Lane, Jr., Esq. and Jessica L. Copeland, Esq.; Hodgson Russ,
      LLP; Buffalo, New York

Before: Thomas H. Burrell, Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Judge,
James A. Haynes and Heather C. Leslie, Administrative Appeals Judges.


                           ORDER DENYING REQUEST

      PER CURIAM. The Complainant, Charles Shi, filed a retaliation complaint
under the employee protection provision of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21 or Act) 1 with the Department of Labor’s
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Complainant alleged that
his employer, a Chinese subsidiary of Respondent Moog Inc., terminated his

1      49 U.S.C. § 42121 (2000). AIR 21’s implementing regulations are found at 29 C.F.R.
Part 1979 (2019).

employment in retaliation for making safety-related complaints. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed Complainant’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction because adjudication of Complainant’s complaint would require impermissible extraterritorial reach. Complainant appealed. Applying Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank, Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), we affirmed, concluding that Congress did not intend for AIR 21 to apply extraterritorially and that Complainant’s case did not represent a domestic application of AIR 21. On January 15, 2020, Complainant requested reconsideration of our decision. On February 27, 2020, we denied reconsideration because we concluded that none of the factors supporting reconsideration were satisfied.

  On March 9, 2020, Complainant filed a letter with the Board titled “Letter to

ARB Judges requesting answers or explanation.” In this letter he takes issue with our decisions in this matter. For the reasons stated in our Order Denying Reconsideration we deny Complainant’s request for answers or explanation in his February 27 letter.

  Complainant may appeal our decision by filing a timely petition pursuant to

29 C.F.R. §1979.112 (Judicial review).

                              CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Complainant’s request in the letter he filed with the Board is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

                                     2