Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. O’Bryan Composting, LLC (agency decision, February 27, 2025)

Plain-English summary

O'Bryan Composting sought interlocutory review after an administrative judge denied its motion to dismiss an H-2A enforcement matter. While the Board considered whether to accept that appeal, the judge issued a new order dismissing the Tennessee-worker allegations for lack of jurisdiction. The company told the Board that the new ruling mooted both the earlier denial and its interlocutory petition. The Board approved withdrawal and dismissed the interlocutory appeal. The judge had separately denied the Wage and Hour Administrator's request to reconsider the Tennessee-worker ruling.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)
• Outcome: Withdrawal approved; interlocutory appeal dismissed as moot.
• Key point: A later ruling granting the requested dismissal mooted the company's interlocutory challenge to the earlier denial.

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:

ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR ARB CASE NO. 2025-0014 DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ALJ CASE NO. 2023-TAE-00005
ALJ NATALIE A. APPETTA
PROSECUTING PARTY,
DATE: February 27, 2025
v.

O’BRYAN COMPOSTING, LLC,

         RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Prosecuting Party:
Kevin A. Shanahan, Esq.; Jennifer S. Brand, Esq.; Sarah Kay Marcus,
Esq.; Rachel Goldberg, Esq.; Emily H. Su, Esq.; U.S. Department of
Labor, Office of the Solicitor; Washington, District of Columbia

For Respondent:
Leon R. Sequeira, Esq.; Sequeira Bilby PLLC; Frankfort, Kentucky;
and Clifford Whitehead, Esq.; Ziemer, Stayman, Weitzel & Shoulders,
LLP; Evansville, Indiana

Before WARREN and ROLFE, Administrative Appeals Judges

ORDER APPROVING WITHDRAWAL OF RESPONDENT’S PETITION OF
REVIEW AND DISMISSING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

PER CURIAM:

  This matter arises under the H-2A provisions of the Immigration and

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), as amended, and its implementing regulations set forth at 20 C.F.R. Part 655, Subpart B, and 29 C.F.R. Part 503. On November 8, 2024, a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge issued an 2

Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. On November 27, 2024, O’Bryan Composting, LLC (Respondent) filed a Petition for Review of the ALJ’s ruling with the Administrative Review Board (Board). On December 6, 2024, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause directing Respondent to show cause why the Board should not dismiss its petition for interlocutory review of the ALJ’s order.

   On February 24, 2025, Respondent filed a request to withdraw its Petition for

Review. Respondent asserted that the ALJ issued an Order Dismissing Alleged Violations Pertaining to TN Workers Due to Lack of Jurisdiction on February 5, 2025, which mooted the ALJ’s prior denial of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and therefore also mooted its interlocutory appeal to the Board. 1
0F

  Accordingly, we GRANT Respondent’s request to withdraw the petition for

review and DISMISS the interlocutory appeal.

  SO ORDERED.




                                ____________________________________
                                IVEY S. WARREN
                                Administrative Appeals Judge



                               _____________________________________
                               JONATHAN ROLFE
                               Administrative Appeals Judge

1 On February 20, 2025, the ALJ issued an Order Denying Administrator’s Motion for Reconsideration.