Barr v. CTL Transportation, LLC, Comcar Industries, Inc., and HireRight Solutions, Inc. (agency decision, April 1, 2019)

Plain-English summary

Alfred Barr sought immediate Board review of procedural orders entered during his Surface Transportation Assistance Act case. While that request was pending, the ALJ dismissed the underlying complaint on the merits. Barr did not timely appeal that final decision, so it became the Secretary of Labor's final order and ended the Board's jurisdiction over the earlier procedural challenge. The Board added that interlocutory review would have been unavailable anyway because Barr challenged ordinary discretionary and procedural rulings rather than presenting exceptional circumstances. It dismissed the interlocutory appeal.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 31105; 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110
• Outcome: Interlocutory appeal dismissed; unappealed ALJ merits decision remained the Secretary's final order.
• Key point: Ordinary procedural disputes do not justify interlocutory review, and an unappealed final ALJ decision ends jurisdiction over the earlier request.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

  In the Matter of:


  ALFRED BARR,                                  ARB CASE NO. 2018-0034

                  COMPLAINANT,                  ALJ CASE NO. 2014-STA-00022

         v.                                     DATE: April 1, 2019

  CTL TRANSPORATION, LLC,
  COMCAR INDUSTRIES, INC.,

         and

  HIRERIGHT SOLUTIONS, INC.,

                  RESPONDENT.


  Appearance:

  For the Complainant:
        Alfred Barr, pro se; Tampa, Florida


  BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD:


              ORDER DISMISSING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

         On March 12, 2018, complainant filed a petition for review requesting
  that the Administrative Review Board (Board) review procedural orders of a
  Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge 1 on a complaint filed under


  1       Orders were issued first by Administrative Law Judge Richard T. Stansell-
  Gamm and second by Chief Administrative Law Judge Stephen R. Henley (the ALJ
  after reassignment of the case on February 10, 2015).



  the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) and its
  implementing regulations. 2 On March 28, 2018, the Board issued an Order to
  Show Cause directing complainant to show cause why his appeal should not
  be dismissed as interlocutory and not subject to review. 3 Complainant filed a
  response on April 23, 2018. The Respondent did not file a reply. Complainant
  subsequently filed status requests with the Board in June and August, 2018.

        While complainant’s request was pending before the Board, the
  Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Decision and Order Dismissing the
  Complaint (Feb. 25, 2019) on the merits of complainant’s STAA complaint. As
  Complainant has not filed an appeal of the ALJ’s decision within the time
  allowed, the ALJ’s decision has become the final order of the Secretary of
  Labor by operation of law. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a), (b). As such, the Board no
  longer has jurisdiction to act in this matter.

        But even if jurisdiction was not extinguished by operation of law, the
  authority of the Board to review interlocutory rulings is limited to exceptional
  circumstances and when such review is not prohibited by statute. 4
  Notwithstanding, Complainant does not raise any exceptional circumstances
  such as dispositive legal issues or jurisdictional matters, but instead
  questions various discretionary and procedural rulings by the ALJ, which are
  determinations typically unsuitable for interlocutory review. The Board thus
  concludes that there exists no extraordinary circumstance in this matter.
  Accordingly, the interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED.

  SO ORDERED FOR THE BOARD.



         WILLIAM T. BARTO
         Chief Administrative Law Judge



  2      49 U.S.C. § 31105 (2007); 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2017).
  3    The Board’s show cause order did not stay the proceedings before the Office of
  Administrative Law Judges.
  4      Secretary’s Order No. 02-2012 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of
  Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board). 77 Fed. Reg. 69,379, § 5(66)
  (Nov. 16, 2012).