McQuay v. Lone Tree Services, Inc. (agency decision, December 19, 2025)

Plain-English summary

Mac McQuay appealed an ALJ’s summary decision in his pipeline safety retaliation case against Lone Tree Services. He later informed the Board that he had filed an action for a fresh review in federal district court and requested administrative closure. The Board explained that the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act allows that route after 210 days without a final Labor Department decision if the delay is not due to the complainant’s bad faith. It held that the Department no longer had jurisdiction because more than 210 days had elapsed and McQuay had chosen to proceed in district court. The Board dismissed the appeal without deciding its merits.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 60129; 49 U.S.C. § 60129(b)(3)(D)(i)
• Outcome: Administrative appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the district court filing.
• Key point: The complainant’s election of district court review after the statutory waiting period ended the Department’s jurisdiction over this 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:


MAC MCQUAY,                                    ARB CASE NO. 2025-0053

            COMPLAINANT,                       ALJ CASE NO. 2024-PSI-00003
                                               ALJ STEWART F. ALFORD
     v.
                                               DATE: December 19, 2025
LONE TREE SERVICES, INC.,

            RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Mac McQuay; Pro Se; Padroni, Colorado

For the Respondent:
Christian J. Schulte, Esq.; Peters Schulte Odil PLLC; Loveland,
Colorado

Before BURRELL and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges

                            ORDER OF DISMISSAL

  This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Pipeline

Safety and Improvement Act and its implementing regulations. 1 On April 19, 2025,
0F

Complainant Mac McQuay filed a Petition for Review with the Administrative
Review Board (Board), appealing a United States Department of Labor
Administrative Law Judge’s Order Granting Motion for Summary Decision.

  On December 18, 2025, Complainant filed a Motion for Administrative

Closured Due to Jurisdictional Shift from the Department of Labor Administrative
Review Board to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

1 49 U.S.C. § 60129; 29 C.F.R. Part 1981 (2025).
 2

Complainant stated that he had filed an original action for de novo review of his
PSIA claim in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
December 5, 2025.

   The PSIA provides that if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final

decision within 210 days of the filing of a complaint, and if the delay is not due to
the bad faith of the complainant, the complainant may bring an original action at
law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United
States.2 Since more than 210 days have elapsed since Complainant filed his
Complaint, and since Complainant has chosen to proceed in district court, the
Department of Labor no longer has jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, we
DISMISS this appeal.

  SO ORDERED.




                               THOMAS H. BURRELL
                               Administrative Appeals Judge




                               PHILIP G. KIKO
                               Administrative Appeals Judge

2 49 U.S.C. § 60129(b)(3)(D)(i).