Tyson v. R.E. Garrison Trucking, Inc. (agency decision, April 7, 2025)

Plain-English summary

Ricky Tyson sought more time to petition for review after an administrative judge dismissed his STAA complaint for failure to prosecute and comply with orders. The Board found good cause and extended the petition deadline from March 11 to March 14, 2025, while warning that no further extension would be granted. Tyson did not file a petition by the new deadline and made no further communication. Because an extension request did not substitute for the required petition, the Board administratively closed the matter. It explained that a dissatisfied party could seek reconsideration within a reasonable time under the Board's limited reconsideration standards.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a)
• Outcome: Matter administratively closed after no petition for review was filed by the extended deadline.
• Key point: Obtaining an extension does not replace the petition for review required by the 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:


RICKY TYSON,                                  ARB CASE NO. 2025-0041

           COMPLAINANT,                       ALJ CASE NO. 2024-STA-00043
                                              ALJ THERESA C. TIMLIN
     v.
                                              DATE: April 7, 2025
R.E. GARRISON TRUCKING, INC.,

           RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Spencer E. Bowley, Esq.; The Rice Firm, LLC; Birmingham, Alabama

For the Respondent:
Breanna Harris Young, Esq.; Starnes Davis Florie LLP; Birmingham,
Alabama; and Shay Persall, Esq.; Shay Persall Law, LLC; Cullman,
Alabama

Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and THOMPSON, Administrative Appeals Judge

                ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

PER CURIAM:

 This case arises under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982

(STAA), as amended.1 Ricky Tyson (Complainant) filed a complaint against R.E.

1 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a), as implemented by the regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 2

Garrison Trucking, Inc. (Respondent) alleging Respondent violated the employee protection provisions of STAA. On February 25, 2025, a United States Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order Dismissing Case for Failure to Prosecute and Comply with Court Orders (D. & O.). In the D. & O., the ALJ noted that Complainant failed to take any meaningful action to advance the case and failed to comply with multiple orders issued by the ALJ.2

   Any party seeking review of an ALJ decision “must file a written petition for

review with the” Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) “within 14 days of the date of the decision of the ALJ.”3 Accordingly, Complainant had until March 11, 2025, to file a timely petition for review with the ARB.

   On March 11, 2025, Complainant filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time for

Filing Petition for Review (Motion for Extension) with the ARB, and the case was administratively assigned ARB Case Number 2025-0041. In the Motion for Extension, Complainant requested an extension to file a petition for review of the D. & O., noting Complainant’s counsel would be “prepared to file a Petition for Review” by “March 14, 2025.”4

   On March 13, 2025, the ARB issued an Order Granting Complainant’s

Motion for Extension (Extension Order), allowing Complainant until March 14, 2025 to file a petition for review because “Complainant filed the motion for an extension of time before the deadline to file a petition for review and provided good cause . . . .”5 However, the ARB “cautioned that no further requests for an extension of time will be granted.”6

   Complainant did not file a petition for review by March 14, 2025, as required

by the ARB’s Extension Order. Furthermore, to date, Complainant has not filed any additional communications with the ARB. Thus, Complainant has not filed a petition for review of the ALJ’s D. & O. Given Complainant’s failure to comply with the ARB’s Extension Order and the requirement to file a petition for review under

(2024).
2 D. & O. at 4.
3 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a). In addition, the Secretary of Labor has delegated authority to the ARB to consider petitions for review under the STAA. Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 85 Fed. Reg. 13,186 (Mar. 6, 2020). 4 Motion for Extension at 1. 5 Extension Order at 1. 6 Id. at 2. 3

29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a), the Board orders that this matter be administratively closed.7

   If either party is dissatisfied with this Order of Administrative Closure, the

dissatisfied party may file a reconsideration motion with the Board.8 We note the Board grants reconsideration under limited circumstances when a 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.9 The foregoing circumstances are not

7 Hope v. Performance Food Serv. Corp., ARB No. 2024-0031, ALJ No. 2023-STA- 00080, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 30, 2024) (Order of Administrative Closure) (administratively closing case because complainant’s filing did not constitute a petition for review). 8 A party may move the ARB to reconsider its decision upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration within a “reasonable time” of the date on which the Board issued decision. DeBuse v. Corr Flight S., ARB No. 2023-0066, ALJ No. 2020-AIR-00015, slip op. at 2 (ARB Feb. 28, 2025) (Order Denying Reconsideration) (citation omitted). In applying this timeliness requirement, the Board has presumed a motion for reconsideration is timely when the motion was filed within a short time after the decision. Id. (citation omitted). The Board has also “granted reconsideration where a petition, though filed after a longer period, raised [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 60(b)-type grounds or showed ‘good cause’ for the delay.” Id. at 2-3 (citation omitted). 9 Kossen v. Empire Airlines, ARB No. 2022-0004, ALJ No. 2019-AIR-00022, slip op. at 2 (ARB July 19, 2023) (Order Denying Reconsideration) (citation omitted). 4

exclusive, and a complainant’s inability to satisfy one is not necessarily fatal to a reconsideration motion.10

  SO ORDERED.




                                     RANDEL K. JOHNSON
                                     Chief Administrative Appeals Judge




                                     ANGELA W. THOMPSON
                                     Administrative Appeals Judge

10 Cooley v. Misa Imports Inc., ARB No. 2025-0005, ALJ No. 2024-SOX-00037, slip op. at 3 (ARB Jan. 22, 2025) (quotations omitted) (Order Granting Reconsideration, Vacating Decision and Order Dismissing Petition for Review, and Reestablishing Briefing Schedule) (granting reconsideration in part because the Board’s orders were not “brought to the counsel’s attention.”).