Williams v. FedEx (agency decision, October 29, 2020)

Plain-English summary

Christopher Williams Jr. alleged that FedEx retaliated against him for activity protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. OSHA dismissed the complaint, an ALJ later dismissed it on cross-motions for summary decision, and Williams petitioned the Board for review. More than 210 days after his OSHA filing, Williams brought an original action in the Eastern District of New York seeking independent review. The Board held that his choice to proceed in district court ended the Department of Labor's jurisdiction, so it dismissed the administrative case without addressing the merits.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 1514A; 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114
• Outcome: Administrative case dismissed after complainant proceeded in federal district court.
• Key point: Filing an eligible Sarbanes-Oxley action in district court removes the complaint from the Department of Labor's jurisdiction.

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:


   CHRISTOPHER A. WILLIAMS, JR.,                 ARB CASE NO. 2020-0064

                COMPLAINANT,                     ALJ CASE N0. 2020-SOX-00006

                                                 DATE: October 29, 2020

         v.

   FEDEX,

                RESPONDENT.


                         ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

          On October 4, 2019, Christopher Williams, Jr. filed a complaint with the
   Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging that he was
   retaliated against by his employer, FedEx for SOX-protected activity.1 After
   investigating Williams’ complaint, the Occupational Safety and Health
   Administration (OSHA) dismissed the complaint. Williams objected to OSHA’s
   findings and requested a hearing before a Department of Labor Administrative Law
   Judge (ALJ). The ALJ issued an Order Dismissing Complaint based on Cross
   Summary Decision Motions on August 26, 2020. Complainant filed a timely
   petition for review with the Administrative Review Board (the Board).

          On October 13, 2020, Complainant filed a Notice with the Board indicating
   that on September 30, 2020, he had filed an original action pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
   1980.114, with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
   York, seeking de novo review. Complainant filed his action more than 210 days
   after he filed his complaint with OSHA.


   1
         18 U.S.C. § 1514A (2010) (SOX), and implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part 1980
   (2020).
                                         2

   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 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.

FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD:

Aubrey Gordon
General Counsel

2
18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1)(B); see also Kelly v. Sonic Auto., ARB No. 2008-0027, ALJ
No. 2008-SOX-00003, slip op. at 4 (ARB Dec. 17, 2008) (the filing of Kelly’s SOX complaint in district court deprived the Department of Labor of jurisdiction over his complaint).