Selvarangan v. Tata Consultancy Services (agency decision, December 20, 2024)

Plain-English summary

Anandaraj Selvarangan alleged that Tata Consultancy Services violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act's employee protections. He asked the administrative judge to withdraw his objections and dismiss the case without prejudice, and the judge approved that request. Selvarangan then submitted a petition describing alleged procedural and ethical problems but repeatedly said he did not seek to reopen the underlying case. The Board found that the approved withdrawal had already made the Assistant Secretary's findings the Secretary of Labor's final order. It exercised its discretion not to treat the new filings as an appeal and closed the matter.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 12 U.S.C. § 5567; 29 C.F.R. § 1985.110(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1985.111(c)
• Outcome: Petition not accepted; Board matter closed; Assistant Secretary's findings remain the final order.
• Key point: Once an administrative judge approved withdrawal of the only objections, the Assistant Secretary's findings became final and the Board declined a filing that expressly did not seek to reopen the case.

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:


ANANDARAJ SELVARANGAN,                         ARB CASE NO. 2025-0022

               COMPLAINANT,                    ALJ CASE NO. 2024-CFP-00010
                                               ALJ SEAN M. RAMALEY
     v.
                                               DATE: December 20, 2024
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES,

               RESPONDENT.

For the Complainant:
Anandaraj Selvarangan; Pro Se; Blaine, Minnesota

For the Respondent:
Alexa Laborda Nelson, Esq.; Littler Mendelson P.C.; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; August Johannsen, Esq.; Littler Mendelson P.C.;
Lexington, Kentucky; and Frederic L. Lieberman, Esq.; Tata
Consultancy Services; New York, New York

Before WARREN, Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and THOMPSON, and ROLFE, Administrative Appeals Judges

               NOTICE OF DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REVIEW

PER CURIAM:

  This case arises under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), as

amended. 1 Anandaraj Selevarangan (Complainant) filed a complaint against Tata
0F

Consultancy Services (Respondent) alleging Respondent violated the employee protection provisions of the CFPA. On December 5, 2024, a United States Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order Granting

1 12 U.S.C. § 5567, as implemented by the regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1985 (2024). 2

Complainant’s Motion to Withdraw Objections and Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice (Order) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1985.111(c). 2 The regulation provides:
1F

          At any time before the Assistant Secretary’s findings
          and/or order become final, a party may withdraw objections
          to the Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or order by filing
          a written withdrawal with the ALJ. . . . The ALJ or the
          [Administrative Review Board], as the case may be, will
          determine whether to approve the withdrawal of the
          objections or the petition for review. If the ALJ approves a
          request to withdraw objections to the Assistant Secretary’s
          findings and/or order, and there are no other pending
          objections, the Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or order
          will become the final order of the Secretary [of Labor].[ 3]
                                                                   2F




   On December 13, 2024, Complainant filed “Petition: Addressing Procedural

Inconsistencies and Ethical Violations” (Petition) with the Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board). In the Petition, Complainant requests the Board to review “significant procedural violations and ethical breaches” that occurred throughout the ALJ proceedings. 4 Complainant asserts these procedural and ethical violations
3F

significantly impacted his ability to pursue his claims under the CFPA. 5 4F

Yet, Complainant reiterates on several occasions that the Petition is not intended to reopen the underlying case but only “to address systemic procedural failures.” 6 5F

On December 16, 2024, Complainant filed a Supplemental Submission for Petition (Supplemental Submission) advising that he attempted to attach several motions and documents to the Petition but was unable to due to technical difficulties. 7 6F

  The Board has reviewed these filings and exercises its discretion to not

accept the Petition or Supplemental Submission as an appeal because it lacks

2 Before the ALJ, Complainant filed a Motion to Close the Case Without Prejudice and Request for Rulings on Pending Motions (Motion). Complainant moved to close the case without prejudice for the following reasons: (1) medical necessity; (2) need for legal representation; (3) procedural delays by Respondent; (4) unethical conduct by Respondent; and (5) to preserve and retain the ability to refile his case. Motion at 4. 3 29 C.F.R. § 1985.111(c). 4 Petition at 1 (emphasis omitted). 5 Id. at 8. 6 See id. at 1, 9. 7 Supplemental Submission at 1-2. 3

jurisdiction to review a final order of the Secretary of Labor (Secretary). 8 When the
7F

ALJ approved Complainant’s request to withdraw objections, the Assistant Secretary’s findings became the final order of the Secretary. 9 Given the Board has
8F

exercised its discretion to not accept the Petition or Supplemental Submission as an appeal, the Board orders that this matter be closed.

   SO ORDERED.


                               ____________________________________
                               IVEY S. WARREN
                               Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Judge




                               ____________________________________
                               ANGELA W. THOMPSON
                               Administrative Appeals Judge




                               ____________________________________
                               JONATHAN ROLFE
                               Administrative Appeals Judge

8 29 C.F.R. § 1985.110(b); see Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board (Secretary’s discretionary review of ARB decisions)), 85 Fed. Reg. 13,186 (Mar. 6, 2020). 9 29 C.F.R. § 1985.111(c).