Taft v. Paramount Coffee Company and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (Board decision, June 25, 2019)

Plain-English summary

An ALJ dismissed Demarco Taft's administrative complaint because he had filed a federal civil action involving the same matters. Taft petitioned the Board after a magistrate judge recommended dismissing the civil case as unripe, raising concern that neither forum would retain jurisdiction. The Board delayed finality of the ALJ ruling while the district court considered that recommendation. A district judge rejected it and allowed Taft to pursue the suit, resolving the only issue raised in his petition. The Board dismissed the petition as moot and later reissued the order only to correct the respondent named in the caption.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 29 C.F.R. §§ 1987.114(a)(2) and 1987.115
• Outcome: Review petition dismissed as moot; order reissued solely to correct the caption.
• Key point: Once the district court allowed the civil action to proceed, the feared jurisdictional gap no longer presented a live issue for Board review.

Full text (DOL official public release)

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

June 25, 2019

ERRATA

TO ALL PARTIES OF THE RECORD IN:

Demarco W. Taft v. Paramount Coffee Company and Director, OWCP (ALJ Case No.
2019-FDA-00002) (ARB Case No. 2019-0031)

On May 13, 2019, the Administrative Review Board issued an Order Dismissing Petition for Review with the incorrect respondent. Please replace the corrected Order service sheet with your previous copy. In all other respects, the Order remains unchanged.

Administrative Review Board:

William T. Barto
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

In the Matter of:

DEMARCO W. TAFT,
ARB CASE NO. 2019-0031

COMPLAINANT,
ALJ CASE NO. 2019-FDA-00002

v. DATE: May 13, 2019

PARAMOUNT COFFEE
Date Reissued: June 25, 2019
COMPANY,

RESPONDENT,
and

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

PARTY-IN-INTEREST.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
On February 5, 2019, an Administrative Law Judge dismissed the underlying complaint in this matter because Complainant had filed civil suit in the United States (U.S.) District Court for the Western District of Michigan concerning the same matters that had given rise to his original administrative complaint. See 29 C.F.R. § 1987.114(a)(2)(2016). On February 19, 2019, Complainant filed a document styled “Appeal and Request for Administrative Review Hearing,” (“Petition”) in which he alerted the Administrative Review Board (“Board”) to a document styled “Report and Recommendation,” (R. & R.) purportedly issued by a U.S. Magistrate Judge from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan that

recommended Complainant’s civil suit be dismissed because it was not ripe. In light of this situation, the Board extended the point in time at which the decision of the ALJ would become the final order of the Secretary until 14 days after the issuance of a decision by the U.S. District Court concerning the R. & R. See id. § 1987.115.
On May 3, 2019, a U.S. District Judge from the Western District of Michigan rejected the R. & R. and authorized Complainant to bring his lawsuit in the appropriate district court. The only issue raised by Complainant in the Petition was the possible lapse in jurisdiction if his federal lawsuit was dismissed. As that issue has now apparently been resolved in Complainant’s favor, the Petition is now moot.
Accordingly, the Petition filed by Complainant is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD:

William T. Barto
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

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