Oyola v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (agency decision, May 29, 2026)

Plain-English summary

Kendrick Oyola brought whistleblower claims under the National Transit Systems Security Act and the Affordable Care Act against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The ALJ dismissed the complaint with prejudice after addressing a venue issue, but Oyola had not filed a federal court complaint under the statutes' kick-out procedure. The ARB held that the kick-out requirements were not satisfied and that the ALJ had erred by dismissing the administrative complaint with prejudice. It vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 6 U.S.C. § 1142; 29 U.S.C. § 218c; and 29 C.F.R. §§ 1982.109(c), 1982.110, 1982.114(a), 1982.114(c), and 1984.114(a)
• Outcome: The ARB vacated the ALJ's dismissal with prejudice and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
• Key point: A claimant's request to pursue a case in another venue does not satisfy the statutory kick-out procedure without filing a federal court action.

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:


    KENDRICK OYOLA,                                  ARB CASE NO. 2025-0048

                COMPLAINANT,                         ALJ CASE NO. 2024-NTS-00001
                                                     ALJ DANA ROSEN
         v.
                                                     DATE: May 29, 2026
    WASHINGTON METROPOLITIAN
    AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
    (WMATA),

                RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
      Kendrick Oyola; Pro Se; Munster, Indiana

For the Respondent:
      J. Clay Rollins, Esq. and Savannah L. McDonald, Esq.; Ogletree,
      Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.; Washington, District of
      Columbia

Before BURRELL and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges


              DECISION AND ORDER VACATING AND REMANDING

       This case arises under the National Transit Systems Security Act (NTSSA)
and its implementing regulations, 1 as well as the Patient Protection and Affordable
                                      0F




Care Act (ACA) and its implementing regulations. 2 On March 15, 2019, Kendrick
                                                        1F




Oyola (Complainant) filed a complaint with the Department of Labor’s (DOL)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), alleging that Washington

1       6 U.S.C. § 1142; 29 C.F.R. Part 1982 (2025).
2       29 U.S.C. § 218c; 29 C.F.R. Part 1984 (2025).

                                                    2


Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Respondent) retaliated against him in
violation of the NTSSA. 3 On November 16, 2020, Complainant amended his claim to
                         2F




include alleged retaliation under the ACA. 4 On September 27, 2023, OSHA
                                                    3F




dismissed the complaint and made several determinations including that
Complainant’s ACA claim was untimely and that there was insufficient evidence to
establish a violation under the NTSSA. 5  4F




       Complainant filed objections with the Office of Administrative Law Judges
(OALJ) and requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). 6       5F




COn February 24, 2025, Complainant filed a Motion to File a Point of Order. 7 In the  6F




motion, Complainant argued that a change of venue was reasonable, but requested
that the ALJ “hold off on ruling until he” filed for a change of venue because he
wanted “the case to remain under DOL authority” and did not “want to enter a
‘Kick-Out’ program . . . .” 8 Despite this, on March 18, 2025, the ALJ issued an Order
                              7F




dismissing the complaint with prejudice. 9 Complainant filed a Motion for
                                               8F




Reconsideration, contending that the ALJ prematurely dismissed the case and
asserting that his intent was to outline the conditions to evaluate and fulfill prior to
formally changing venue. 10 On April 23, 2025, the ALJ denied Complainant’s
                                   9F




motion, restating that Complainant had demonstrated “good cause to grant the
Motion for Change of Venue” and that the requirements of 29 C.F.R. §§ 1982.114(a)
and (c) were satisfied and concluding that “[u]pon review of the file and the




3      Order Granting Complainant’s Motion to Change Venue and Order Dismissing with
Prejudice so Complainant May Remove for Change of Venue (Order) at 2.
4     OSHA Determination Letter at 1.
5     Id. at 2.
6     Order at 2.
7       Id. at 1. Although the ALJ referenced several times that Complainant filed a
“Motion to Change Venue,” it does not appear that Complainant filed a Motion to Change
Venue. Indeed, Complainant specifically requested that the ALJ not make any ruling
regarding venue “until he files a Motion for a Change of Venue.” Complainant’s Motion to
File a Point of Order at 9.
8     Complainant’s Motion to File a Point of Order at 9.
9     Order at 1. The ALJ did not address Complainant’s ACA claim.
10   Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of Order Granting
Change of Venue at 1.

                                                  3


arguments made, Complainant would be best served with his initial intention to
pursue his complaint before the U.S. District Court.” 11   10F




      Complainant petitioned the Administrative Review Board (Board) to review
the ALJ’s Order. Both parties filed briefs.

      The Secretary of Labor has delegated to the Board the authority to issue final
agency decisions in review or on appeal of matters arising under the NTSAA and
the ACA. 12 The Board will affirm the ALJ’s factual findings if supported by
          11F




substantial evidence, but reviews conclusions of law de novo. 13       12F




       The NTSSA provides:

                [I]f the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision
                within 210 days after the filing of the complaint and if the
                delay is not due to the bad faith of the employee, the
                employee may bring an original action at law or equity for
                de novo review in the appropriate district court of the
                United States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an
                action without regard to the amount in controversy, and
                which action shall, at the request of either party to such
                action, be tried by the court with a jury.[ 14]  13F




      To comply with the NTSSA “kick-out” or removal regulations, Complainant
must file a copy of the federal court complaint with the ALJ or the Board, as
appropriate, within seven days of filing. 1514F




11    Order Denying Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Order Denying
Reconsideration) at 1-2.
12     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. 13186 (Mar. 6, 2020).
13      Harte v. Metro. Transp. Auth., ARB No. 2017-0002, ALJ No. 2015-NTS-00002,
slip op. at 3 (ARB Aug. 20, 2019), reissued with corrections, ARB No. 2017-0002 (Sept. 6,
2019).
14     6 U.S.C. § 1142(c)(7); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1982.114(a).
15     29 C.F.R. § 1982.114(c).

                                              4



       The ACA sets forth a similar kick-out mechanism:

               If the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 210
               days after the filing of the complaint, or within 90 days
               after receiving a written determination, the complainant
               may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in
               the appropriate district court of the United States with
               jurisdiction, which shall have jurisdiction over such an
               action without regard to the amount in controversy, and
               which action shall, at the request of either party to such
               action, be tried by the court with a jury.[ 16]
                                                           15F




       As with the NTSSA, if the complainant elects to kick out to federal district
court under this provision, he must file a copy of the federal court complaint with
the ALJ or the Board, as appropriate, within seven days of filing. 17   16F




      Complainant argues that the ALJ prematurely dismissed his case and
asserts that he neither filed in district court nor intended to opt out of the
administrative proceedings. 18 He requests that the Board vacate the ALJ’s Order. 19
                               17F                                                           18F




       We conclude the NTSSA and ACA kick-out requirements were not satisfied.
Complainant did not “bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in” district
court regarding his NTSSA or ACA whistleblower claims. The ALJ did not find that
Complainant filed a copy of a federal court complaint, nor does the record support




16     15 U.S.C. § 2087(b)(4) (incorporated by 29 U.S.C. § 218c(b)(1)); see also 29 C.F.R.
§ 1984.114(a).
17     29 C.F.R. § 1984.114(c).
18     Complainant’s Petition for Review at 2-3.
19     Id. at 5.

                                             5


that Complainant filed his whistleblower complaint in federal court. 20 Significantly,
                                                                         19F




Complainant expressly stated in his Motion to File a Point of Order that he wanted
“the case to remain under DOL authority” and that he did “not want to enter a
‘Kick-Out’ program.” 21 Thus, the ALJ erred in dismissing Complainant’s complaint
                      20F




with prejudice.

      Complainant also requests that his case be remanded to OSHA to address his
procedural and concerns with the investigation. 22 Neither the Board nor the ALJ
                                                    21F




has the authority to remand a complaint to OSHA. 23 Rather, an ALJ reviews a
                                                          22F




complaint de novo and “will hear the case on the merits or dispose of the matter
without a hearing if the facts and circumstances warrant.” 24 Thus, Complainant’s
                                                                23F




request to remand to OSHA is denied.




20      Order at 1-3, Order Denying Reconsideration at 1-3. On November 10, 2023,
Complainant filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit requesting the Court force OSHA to schedule a field investigation. On September
25, 2024, the D.C. Circuit dismissed Complainant’s petition in part and denied in part
because of a lack of jurisdiction and because Complainant had alternative remedies of
exhausting the administrative process and then appealing the final agency action.
Respondent contends that Complainant’s petition demonstrated his “interest in pursuing
his claims in another venue.” Respondent’s Br. at 3. However, Complainant’s Petition for
Writ of Mandamus did not bring an action to review his NTSSA or ACA claims de novo.
On March 19, 2025, Complainant filed a Petition for Emergency Review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the ALJ’s Order. On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the petition, stating that Complainant had
alternative remedies of completing the administrative process and appealing the final
agency decision.
21     Motion for Point of Order at 9.
22     Complainant’s Petition for Review at 3-5.
23     See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1982.109(c) and 1982.110.
24     29 C.F.R. § 1982.109(c).

                                       6


      Accordingly, we vacate the ALJ’s Order dismissing Complainant’s complaint
with prejudice, and remand the matter to the ALJ for further proceedings.

      SO ORDERED.



                              THOMAS H. BURRELL
                              Administrative Appeals Judge




                              PHILIP G. KIKO
                              Administrative Appeals Judge