Kovarik v. Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc. (agency decision, February 16, 2024)

Plain-English summary

An administrative judge dismissed Jaromir Kovarik's Pipeline Safety Improvement Act complaint with prejudice. Kovarik moved the judge to reconsider and sent a copy of that motion through the Board's filing system, which caused an ARB case number to be assigned. The judge then granted reconsideration and reinstated the complaint. Because Kovarik's motion sought relief only from the judge and was not a petition for Board review, the Board administratively closed its case.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 49 U.S.C. § 60129
• Outcome: Board case administratively closed; the complaint had been reinstated before the administrative judge.
• Key point: Cross-filing a motion addressed only to an administrative judge does not create a petition for Board review.

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:

JAROMIR KOVARIK, ARB CASE NO. 2024-0024

        COMPLAINANT,                       ALJ NO. 2023-PSI-00004
                                           ALJ NATALIE A. APPETTA
  V.
                                           DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2024

GROUNDWATER & ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., and ENERGY
TRANSFER OPERATING L.P.,

        RESPONDENTS.


              NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

  This matter arises under the employee protection provisions of the Pipeline

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (PSIA), and its implementing regulations.1 This matter is currently pending before the United States Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges. On February 1, 2024, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order Denying Complainant Jaromir Kovarik’s Motion to Stay Instant Proceedings as Moot and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice, which, among other things, dismissed Complainant Jaromir Kovarik’s complaint with prejudice. On February 7, 2024, Complainant filed a Motion to Reconsider Order Denying His Motion to Stay Instant Proceedings and Order Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice (Motion for Reconsideration) with the ALJ. On the same day, Complainant filed a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration with the Administrative Review Board (Board) using the Board’s Electronic Filing and Service (EFS) System, and the case was administratively assigned ARB Case Number 2024-0024. On February 9, 2024, the ALJ issued an Order Granting Complainant Jaromir Kovarik’s Motion to Reconsider which, among other things, reinstated Complainant’s complaint.

1
49 U.S.C. § 60129, as implemented by 29 C.F.R. Part 1981 (2023).
 2

  Although Complainant cross-filed a copy of his Motion for Reconsideration

with the Board, the Motion for Reconsideration was addressed to and sought relief exclusively from the ALJ and does not constitute a petition for review under the PSIA. Accordingly, the case before the Administrative Review Board is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.

FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
PURSUANT TO DELEGATED AUTHORITY:

Thomas O. Shepherd, Jr.
Clerk of the Appellate Boards