Mitchell v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (AMTRAK) (agency decision, May 13, 2021)

Plain-English summary

Robert Mitchell appealed an ALJ's dismissal of his Federal Railroad Safety Act case against Amtrak. Three days after the ALJ decision, Mitchell filed an original action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(3). He later notified the Administrative Review Board of that filing. The Board held that the Department of Labor no longer had jurisdiction because Mitchell had chosen to proceed in district court. It dismissed the administrative case without deciding the underlying whistleblower allegations.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 20109 and § 20109(d)(3)
• Outcome: Administrative complaint dismissed after removal to federal district court.
• Key point: An FRSA original action under § 20109(d)(3) places jurisdiction in district court and ends the Department of Labor proceeding.

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:



   ROBERT MITCHELL,                                      ARB CASE NO. 2020-0040

                  COMPLAINANT,                           ALJ CASE NO. 2019-FRS-00101

          v.                                             DATE: May 13, 2021

   NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
   CORPORATION, d/b/a AMTRAK

                  RESPONDENT.

   Before: James D. McGinley, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and
   Thomas H. Burrell, Administrative Appeals Judge


                             ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

          PER CURIAM. This case arises under the whistleblower protection provisions
   of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1982 (FRSA).1 On March 18, 2020, the
   Administrative Review Board (Board) issued a Notice of Appeal and Order
   Establishing Briefing of the Administrative Law Judge Lystra A. Harris’ Decision
   and Order of Dismissal issued March 3, 2020.

         On April 10, 2020, Complainant filed a Notice with the Board indicating that
   on March 6, 2020, he had filed an original action pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §
   20109(d)(3), with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
   Pennsylvania, seeking review.

         Since Complainant has chosen to proceed in district court, the Department of
   Labor no longer has jurisdiction over his case. As the statute provides, the “district


   1
          49 U.S.C. § 20109 (2008), as implemented by 29 C.F.R. Part 1982 (2020) and 29 C.F.R. Part
   18, Subpart A (2020).
                                      2

court of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction over such an action.”2 We
therefore DISMISS this case on the ground that Complainant has removed it to
district court.

SO ORDERED.

2 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(3).