Boettcher v. Washington River Protection Solutions (Board decision, May 17, 2018)

Plain-English summary

Ed Boettcher had an employee protection complaint under the Energy Reorganization Act pending before the Board. He notified the Board that he intended to bring the matter to a federal district court in Washington and said he was giving 15 days' notice. The Board explained that a complainant may seek a new district court hearing when the Department of Labor has not issued a final decision within one year and the delay was not caused by the complainant's bad faith. Because Boettcher intended to proceed in district court, the Board dismissed his Department of Labor complaint. The order did not decide whether his employer violated the Act.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: District court action after one year without a final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(4).
• Outcome: Department of Labor complaint dismissed after Boettcher gave notice of intent to proceed in federal district court.
• Key point: The Board ended its administrative case when Boettcher chose the Act's district court route.

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:

ED BOETTCHER,
ARB CASE NOS. 18-041
18-042
COMPLAINANT,
ALJ CASE NO. 2016-ERA-007 v.
DATE: May 17, 2018
WASHINGTON RIVER
PROTECTION SOLUTIONS,

RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Thad M. Guyer, Esq. and Stephani L. Ayers, Esq., T.M. Guyer and Ayers & Friends, Medford, Oregon

For the Respondent:
Jennifer R. Willner, Esq.; Halvorson Losie Willner PLLC; Bellingham, Washington

BEFORE: Joanne Royce, Administrative Appeals Judge and Leonard J. Howie III, Administrative Appeals Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

On May 7, 2018, Complainant Ed Boettcher filed Complainant’s Notice of Intent to Bring Action in U.S. District Court in this case arising under the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), as amended, and implementing regulations. 1 In this Notice, Boettcher stated that he was giving 15 days’ notice of his

1
42 U.S.C.A. § 5851 (Thomson Reuters 2012) (ERA); 29 C.F.R. Part 24 (2017).

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 1
 intent to file a complaint in this matter with the appropriate United States District Court in Washington State on or after May 16, 2018.

If the Board has not issued a final decision within one year of the date on which the complainant filed an ERA complaint with the Department of Labor, and there is no showing that the complainant has acted in bad faith to delay the proceedings, the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate United States district court, which will have jurisdiction over the action without regard to the amount in controversy. 2

Accordingly, as Boettcher intends to proceed de novo in district court, we DISMISS his ERA complaint filed with the Department of Labor.

SO ORDERED.

JOANNE ROYCE
Administrative Appeals Judge

LEONARD J. HOWIE III
Administrative Appeals Judge

2
42 U.S.C.A. § 5851(b)(4).

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 2