Trivedi v. General Electric (agency decision, September 14, 2023)

Plain-English summary

An administrative judge dismissed Madhuri Trivedi's SOX complaint after finding that she had not suffered an adverse action. Trivedi asked the Board for more than four months to prepare a petition for review. The Board instead granted ten additional days, warned that no further extensions would be allowed, and explained that missing the deadline could lead to dismissal. Trivedi filed two more extension requests but no petition by the extended deadline. The Board dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute and denied the remaining motions as moot.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 18 U.S.C. § 1514A
• Outcome: Appeal dismissed because no petition for review was filed by the extended deadline.
• Key point: Repeated extension requests do not replace the petition required by a firm extended deadline.

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:

MADHURI TRIVEDI, ARB CASE NO. 2023-0043

            COMPLAINANT,                     ALJ CASE NO. 2023-SOX-00014
                                             CHIEF ALJ STEPHEN R. HENLEY
     v.
                                             DATE: September 14, 2023

GENERAL ELECTRIC and
GE HEALTHCARE,

            RESPONDENTS.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Madhuri Trivedi; pro se; Boston Massachusetts

For the Respondents:
Cassandra Beckman Widay, Esq.; Dentons US LLP; New York, New
York

Before HARTHILL, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and PUST, Administrative Appeals Judge

     DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

PER CURIAM:

   This case arises under the whistleblower protection provisions of Section 806

of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX),1 and its implementing regulations.2 Madhuri Trivedi (Complainant) filed a whistleblower complaint against General Electric and GE

1 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.
2 29 C.F.R. Part 1980 (2023).
 2

Healthcare (Respondents) for alleged retaliation. On August 7, 2023, the United States Department of Labor’s Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a Decision and Order (D. & O.) dismissing the complaint based on his finding that Complainant did not suffer an adverse action.3

    On August 21, 2023, the Administrative Review Board (Board) received a

motion from Complainant requesting an extension of time, until December 30, 2023, to file a petition for review. On August 23, 2023, the Board granted Complainant’s motion to extend time to file a petition for review in part,4 providing Complainant with an additional ten calendar days following the date of the order to file her petition for review.5 The Board cautioned Complainant that no further extensions would be granted and that failure to respond as directed “may result in the issuance of sanctions, including dismissal of this appeal.”6

   As of September 2, 2023, that being ten days after the date of the Board’s

order, Complainant has not filed a petition for review. Rather, on August 24, 2023, Complainant filed a second motion for an extension of time, again requesting until December 30, 2023, to file her petition for review. On September 8, 2023, Complainant filed a third motion for an extension of time that is identical to her August 24, 2023 motion.

   The Board has the inherent power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute in

an effort to control its docket and to promote the efficient disposition of its cases.7 Pursuant to this authority, the Board may dismiss a complaint in a case in which the complainant failed to adequately explain a failure to comply with the Board’s briefing schedule.8

  Complainant failed to file a petition for review within the extended

timeframe ordered by the Board. Although Complainant filed second and third motions for an extension of time to file a petition for review, Complainant was

3 Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint and Granting, in Part, Respondents’ Motion Requesting Litigation Controls at 6. 4 Order Granting, In Part, Complainant’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition for Review at 1. 5 Id. at 2. 6 Id. 7 Lewman v. Ken Brick Masonry Supply, ARB No. 2007-0015, ALJ No. 2006-STA- 00018 (ARB Oct. 31, 2007) (citing Link v. Wabash R. R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). 8 Boch v. J.P. Morgan Secs., ARB No. 2022-0029, ALJ Nos. 2020-CFP-00002, 2020- SOX-00004 (ARB June 15, 2022) (dismissing the appeal where Complainant failed to respond to, and comply with, the Board’s orders). 3

cautioned that no further extensions would be granted.9 Complainant was further cautioned that failure to file a petition for review as ordered could result in dismissal of her appeal. Given Complainant’s failure to comply the Board’s order, we DISMISS Complainant’s appeal.10

   SO ORDERED. 11


                                      __________________________________________
                                      SUSAN HARTHILL
                                      Chief Administrative Appeals Judge



                                      __________________________________________
                                      TAMMY L. PUST
                                      Administrative Appeals Judge

9 Order Granting, In Part, Complainant’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition for Review at 2. 10 Complainant also filed a motion to have her case reassigned and a motion for a stay. In light of the Board’s dismissal of this case, these issues are moot. 11 In any appeal of this Decision and Order that may be filed, we note that the appropriately named party is the Secretary, Department of Labor, not the Administrative Review Board.