Thomas v. Dupont Specialty Products USA, LLC (agency decision, March 11, 2025)

Plain-English summary

Tesia Thomas alleged that DuPont Specialty Products and On-Board Services retaliated against her in violation of three federal environmental statutes. An administrative judge dismissed the claims as untimely with no basis to modify the deadlines, and the Board affirmed that ruling in February 2025. Thomas sought reconsideration, arguing that the Board had not adequately considered her environmental complaints and their connection to the statutes. The Board found that she repeated arguments already considered and rejected rather than identifying new facts, a change in law, previously unavailable material, or an overlooked material fact. It denied reconsideration.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 42 U.S.C. § 7622; 33 U.S.C. § 1367; 15 U.S.C. § 2622
• Outcome: Reconsideration denied; prior affirmance of the untimeliness dismissal remains in effect.
• Key point: Reconsideration does not provide another opportunity to repeat arguments the Board already considered and rejected.

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:

TESIA THOMAS, ARB CASE NO. 2023-0055

         COMPLAINANT, ALJ CASE NO. 2023-WPC-00004
                      ALJ CARRIE BLAND
   v.
                              DATE: March 11, 2025

DUPONT SPECIALTY
PRODUCTS USA, LLC and
ON-BOARD SERVICES,
INC.,

   RESPONDENTS.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Tesia Thomas; Pro Se; Mentor, Ohio

For the Respondents:
James P. Verdi, Esq.; Jackson Lewis, P.C.; Cleveland, Ohio; Patrick
W. Dennison, Esq.; Fisher & Phillips, LLP; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and M. Robin Repass, Esq.; Fisher & Phillips, LLP; Washington, District of Columbia

Before THOMPSON and ROLFE, Administrative Appeals Judges

               ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

PER CURIAM:

   This case arises from a complaint filed by Tesia Thomas (Complainant)

against DuPont Specialty Products, LLC and On-Board Services Inc. (Respondents), alleging retaliation in violation of the whistleblower protection provisions of the 2

Clean Air Act (CAA),1 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),2 and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 3 and their implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 24.4 On September 22, 2023, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint finding it untimely under each applicable statutory deadline, and that Complainant did not establish a basis to equitably modify the filing deadline. Complainant appealed to the Administrative Review Board (Board). On February 19, 2024, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision.

   On February 26, 2024, Complainant filed a petition seeking reconsideration

of the Board’s decision. On March 5, 2025, Respondent DuPont Specialty Products filed a motion opposing Complainant’s request for reconsideration. Complainant filed a response on March 6, 2024. On March 10, 2025, Respondent On-Board Services filed a motion opposing Complainant’s request for reconsideration. For the following reasons, we deny Complainant’s motion.

   The Board will reconsider a decision and order only under limited

circumstances.5 In considering whether to reconsider a decision, the Board considers whether the movant has demonstrated: (i) material differences in fact or law from those presented to the Board of which the moving party could not have known through reasonable diligence, (ii) new material facts that occurred after the Board’s decision; (iii) a change in the law after the Board’s decision, or (iv) failure to consider material facts presented to the Board before its decision.6

      Complainant’s motion does not fall within any of the limited circumstances
warranting reconsideration. Her sole argument is that the Board failed to consider
material facts that were known to the Board prior to making its decision.
Specifically, she argues that the Board should reconsider its decision because it did
not consider the specific environmental complaints from her April 12, 2022 OSHA
complaint, and she requests that the Board explain why “some sort of sulfuric acid”
would not implicate the TSCA, CAA, and FWPCA. This simply repeats arguments
that she raised in her original appeal that the Board considered and rejected. We
will not address them again on reconsideration.7

1 42 U.S.C. § 7622.
2 33 U.S.C. § 1367.
3 15 U.S.C. § 2622.
4 29 C.F.R. Part 24 (2024).
5 Shah v. Albert Fried & Co., ARB No. 2020-0063, ALJ No. 2019-SOX-00015, slip op. at 2 (ARB Jan. 31, 2023) (Order Denying Second Motion for Reconsideration). 6 Clark v. Hamilton Hauling, LLC, ARB No. 2013-0023, ALJ No. 2011-STA-00007, slip op. at 2 (ARB July 24, 2014) (Order Denying Motion for Panel Reconsideration). 7 See Heyward v. Benore Logistic Sys., Inc., ARB No. 2021-0023, ALJ No. 2020-STA- 00117 (ARB Sept. 7, 2021) (Order Denying Reconsideration) (denying motion for 3

  Accordingly, the Board DENIES Complainant’s Petition for Reconsideration.

  SO ORDERED.



                              ANGELA W. THOMPSON
                              Administrative Appeals Judge


                              JONATHAN ROLFE
                              Administrative Appeals Judge

reconsideration where a party repeated arguments already raised in his original appeal); Jackson v. CPC Logistics, ARB No. 2007-0006, ALJ No. 2006-STA-00004 (ARB Jan. 29, 2009) (Order Denying Reconsideration) (denying motion for reconsideration where a party repeated his prior arguments).