Robles v. Mr. Bults, Inc. (agency decision, February 20, 2026)

Plain-English summary

Sergio Robles alleged that Mr. Bults, Teamsters 731, and Waste Management retaliated against him for raising safety and health concerns. He received notice of his termination in October 2023 but filed his OSHA complaints in January 2025, about nine months after the 180-day deadline. The Board held that he did not support his obstruction allegations with evidence or explain how the alleged conduct prevented a timely filing. It also rejected the continuing violations argument because the alleged adverse actions were discrete acts and he did not establish a qualifying pattern. The Board affirmed dismissal of the complaints as untimely.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 18.72(a)
• Outcome: Dismissal of the STAA complaints as untimely affirmed.
• Key point: Equitable tolling requires a supported explanation for the delayed filing, and discrete adverse actions do not become timely merely by labeling them a continuing violation.

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:


SERGIO B. ROBLES,                              ARB CASE NO. 2025-0058

            COMPLAINANT,                       ALJ CASE NO. 2025-STA-00050,
                                               -00051, -00052
     v.                                        ALJ DREW A. SWANK

MR. BULTS, INC., TEAMSTERS 731,                DATE: February 20, 2026
and WASTE MANAGEMENT,

            RESPONDENTS.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Sergio B. Robles; Pro Se; Rockford, Illinois

For the Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc.:
Tom H. Luetkemeyer, Esq.; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP; Chicago,
Illinois

For the Respondent Teamsters 731:
Rachel R. Rekowski, Esq.; Herzfeld, Suetholz, Gastel, Leniski & Wall,
PLLC; Cincinnati, Ohio

For the Respondent Waste Management:
John W. Stapleton, Esq.; Fisher & Phillips LLP; Atlanta, Georgia

Before KAPLAN and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges

                            DECISION AND ORDER

 This case arises under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982

(STAA), as amended, and its implementing regulations. 1 Complainant Sergio B.
0F

1 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2025). 2

Robles filed whistleblower complaints with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging that Respondents Mr. Bult’s, Inc., Teamsters 731, and Waste Management unlawfully retaliated against him for engaging in STAA protected activity. 2 OSHA dismissed the
1F

complaints as untimely. Complainant objected to OSHA’s determination and the case was assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On May 7, 2025, the ALJ dismissed the complaints as untimely. 3 Complainant petitioned the Administrative
2F

Review Board (Board) for review of the ALJ’s Order. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                                    BACKGROUND

  On October 6, 2023, Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. began the process of

terminating Complainant’s employment. 4 On October 9, 2023, Mr. Bults, Inc.
3F

formally notified Complainant that his employment was terminated. 5 4F

   On January 18, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with OSHA, alleging

that Respondents Teamsters 731 and Mr. Bults, Inc. colluded and retaliated against him by terminating him in reprisal for raising safety and health concerns in violation of the STAA. 6 On January 21, 2025, Complainant filed another complaint
5F

with OSHA alleging the same against Respondent Waste Management. 7 OSHA 6F

dismissed Complainant’s complaints.

   Complainant filed an objection and requested a hearing before an ALJ with

the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). On April 21, 2025, Respondent Teamsters 731 filed a Motion to Dismiss for Untimely Complaint. 8 On April 22,
7F

2025, the ALJ issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Complainant to show why the motion should not be granted. 98F

   Complainant contended that equitable tolling was necessary to prevent

injustice, and that extraordinary circumstances were warranted because of Respondents’ alleged withholding of evidence, concealment of an updated collective

2 Order Dismissing Claim Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1) (ALJ May 7, 2025) (Order) at 1. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. at 2. 9 Id. 3

bargaining agreement, and ongoing interference with his complaint. 10 The ALJ
9F

concluded that Complainant’s arguments were meritless and unpersuasive because Complainant’s allegations were unsubstantiated. 11 The ALJ found that
10F

Complainant had actual knowledge of the alleged adverse action on October 6, 2023, or at the latest on October 9, 2023, when Mr. Bults, Inc. terminated his employment, and that Complainant did not explain why he did not file his complaint within the 180-day time period. 12 The ALJ determined that equitable
11F

tolling did not apply, and dismissed the whistleblower complaints as untimely. 13 12F

     Complainant filed a petition for review before the Board. Both parties filed

briefs. 14
13F

                   JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

  The Secretary of Labor has delegated the Board the authority to hear appeals

from ALJ decisions and issue agency decisions under the STAA. 15 The Board
14F

reviews an ALJ’s grant of summary decision de novo under the same standard the ALJ applies. 16 This includes pre-hearing dismissals based on timeliness. 17
15F 16F

                                   DISCUSSION

10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 2-3.
14 Complainant also filed two motions. On September 9, 2025, Complainant filed a Notice of Respondent Mr. Bult’s, Inc. Non-Compliance with Briefing Order, contending that Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. should be sanctioned for not filing a response brief. Complainant cites several cases to support his argument. We deny Complainant’s motion. Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. was not required to submit a response brief and the cases Complainant cited to do not support his argument. Next, on September 14, 2025, Complainant filed a Notice of Respondents’ Procedural Violations Affecting Proceedings, reiterating his argument above as well as arguments made in his Opening Brief. We are not persuaded by his arguments and to the extent they can be considered a motion, deny it as well. 15 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). 16 Kirschmann v. Hampton Rds. Transit, ARB No. 2023-0002, ALJ No 2021-NTS- 00006, slip op. at 6 (ARB Feb. 14, 2024) (citation omitted). 17 Rashad v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0047, ALJ No. 2025-STA- 00039, slip op. at 4 (ARB Aug. 14, 2025) (citation omitted). 4

   Summary decision is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to

any material fact and the movant is entitled to decision as a matter of law.” 18 In 17F

considering a motion for summary decision, the Board views the evidence, and makes all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 19 If the moving party demonstrates an absence of evidence supporting the
18F

non-moving party’s position, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish the existence of an issue of fact that could affect the outcome of the litigation. 20 The 19F

non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations, speculation, or denials, but must instead set forth specific facts on each issue upon which the non-moving party would bear the ultimate burden of proof. 21 If the non-moving party fails to show an
20F

essential element of their case, there can be no “genuine issue of material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. 22 21F

    A complainant pursuing a whistleblower retaliation claim under the STAA

must meet certain deadlines. 23 These deadlines apply whether a complainant is
22F

represented by counsel or is proceeding pro se. 24 Complainants are responsible for
23F

determining which statute, and which deadline, applies to their case and for meeting that deadline. 25 “[I]gnorance of the law is no excuse” for missing a filing
24F

deadline. 26 Employees alleging employer retaliation in violation of the STAA must
25F

file their complaints with OSHA within 180 days of the alleged retaliatory act. 27 26F

18 29 C.F.R. § 18.72(a).
19 Judy v. Covenant Transp., ARB No. 2021-0015, ALJ No. 2019-STA-00054, slip op. at 4 (ARB Nov. 8, 2021) (citation omitted). 20 See Kirschmann, ARB No. 2023-0002, slip op. at 6 (citations omitted). 21 Id. (citation omitted). 22 White v. Carl Perry Enter., Inc., ARB No. 2014-0024, ALJ No. 2013-STA-00013, slip op. at 4 (ARB Dec. 10, 2015) (“failure to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact on any one of these essential elements means that a complainant cannot prevail on his retaliation claim”). 23 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1). 24 Jeanty v. Lily Transp. Corp., ARB No. 2019-0005, ALJ No. 2018-STA-00013, slip op. at 12 (ARB May 13, 2020) (citation omitted) (A complainant “is not excused from the rules of practice and procedure applicable to this proceeding merely because of his [or her] pro se status.”). 25 Mehrotra v. Gen. Elec. Co., ARB No. 2022-0060, ALJ No. 2017-SOX-00014, slip op. at 4 (ARB Sept. 21, 2023). 26 Id. (citing Martin v. Paragon Foods, ARB No. 2022-0058, ALJ No. 2021-FDA-00001, slip op. at 6 (ARB June 8, 2023) (citation omitted)). 27 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1). 5

   The Board has found that the statutes of limitation in whistleblower cases

begin to run on the date an employee receives “final, definitive, and unequivocal notice” of an adverse employment decision. 28 The claim accrues on “[t]he date that
27F

an employer communicates a decision to implement such a decision, rather than the date the consequences of the decision are felt.” 29 The Board may modify a filing
28F

deadline under equitable tolling principles, which focus on a complainant’s “excusable ignorance of the employer’s discriminatory act.” 30 29F

   Equitable tolling is “a rare and ‘extraordinary measure that applies only

when plaintiff is prevented from filing despite exercising that level of diligence which could reasonably be expected in the circumstances.’” 31 The Board has
30F

recognized several principal situations in which the limitations period may be tolled, including: (1) when the movant has raised the precise statutory claim in issue but has done so in the wrong forum; (2) when the movant has in some extraordinary way been prevented from filing; and (3) when the movant has some excusable ignorance of the respondent’s discriminatory act. 32 Complainant bears
31F

the burden of justifying the application of equitable tolling. 33 To invoke equitable
32F

tolling, the claim must be brought within a reasonable time after the complainant “has obtained, or by due diligence could have obtained, the necessary information” giving rise to the claim. 34
33F

  Here, Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. terminated Complainant’s employment on

October 9, 2023. 35 Complainant did not file his OSHA whistleblower complaints
34F

against Respondents Mr. Bults, Inc. and Teamsters 731 until January 18, 2025, and against Respondent Waste Management until January 21, 2025, approximately nine months after the 180-day deadline. 36 Thus, Complainant’s complaints are
35F

untimely.

28 Mehrotra, ARB No. 2022-0060, slip op. at 5 (citation omitted). 29 Id. (citations omitted). 30 Martin, ARB No. 2022-0058, slip op. at 8 (citations omitted). 31 Id. at 9 (citation omitted). 32 Id. (citations omitted). 33 Id. (citations omitted). 34 Judy, ARB No. 2021-0015, slip op. at 4 (quoting Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 453 (7th Cir. 1990)). 35 Order at 1. 36 Id. 6

   Complainant contends that the ALJ erred in finding that equitable tolling did

not apply. 37 Specifically, Complainant alleges that Respondents have a systemic
36F

pattern of obstructing investigations. 38 We are not persuaded. Complainant has not
37F

provided evidence to support these allegations and even if he had, he has not explained how these circumstances prevented him from filing a timely whistleblower claim. As the ALJ found, these accusations are meritless and without sufficient proof of either manifest injustice or that equitable tolling applies. Thus, Complainant’s OSHA complaints are untimely and equitable tolling does not apply.

   Next, Complainant contends that the continuing violations doctrine applies. 39   38F

Specifically, Complainant alleges that continuing violations are demonstrated by unpaid wages for training purposes, Respondents withholding evidence, Respondents’ alleged use of fraudulent documents in Complainant’s unemployment case, Respondents’ interference with his complaints, and Respondent Teamsters 731’s denial of his grievance and arbitration rights. 40
39F

   The continuing violations doctrine may allow a complainant “who ordinarily

would be unable to recover damages for discrete acts of discrimination falling outside the limitations period [to] avoid that bar if those acts are shown to be part of a pattern of discrimination anchored by acts that occurred within the limitations period.” 41 The continuing violation doctrine is not a grounds for tolling, but instead
40F

“forestalls the commencement of the limitations period for as long as the continuing violation is ongoing.” 42 The continuing violations doctrine does not apply to discrete
41F

acts of alleged discrimination. 43 Discrete acts include “termination, failure to
42F

promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire.” 44 The continuing violation doctrine is
43F

generally applied in the context of hostile work environment claims. 45 44F

   We conclude that the continuing violations doctrine does not apply because

the alleged adverse actions taken in this matter were all discrete acts. As the ALJ

37 Complainant’s (Comp.) Brief (Br.) at 8, 22-23.
38 Id. at 15-16.
39 Id. at 5-6.
40 Id. at 6, 12-14.
41 Trivedi v. Gen. Elec., ARB No. 2022-0026, ALJ No. 2022-SOX-00005, slip op. at 9 (ARB Aug. 24, 2022) (citation omitted). 42 Woods v. Boeing-South Carolina, ARB No. 2013-0035, ALJ No. 2011-AIR-00009, slip op. at 2 n.3 (ARB Mar. 20, 2014) (citation omitted). 43 Id. (citation omitted). 44 Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114 (2002). 45 See id. at 115-21. 7

found, Complainant’s allegations that the alleged adverse actions constituted a continuing violation lack merit and are unsubstantiated. Complainant has simply not demonstrated that any of these allegations are part of a pattern of discrimination that is anchored by acts that occurred within the limitations period. Thus, the continuing violations doctrine does not apply.

   Lastly, Complainant also asserts that, because the ALJ initially accepted

jurisdiction of his complaint and established a hearing schedule, the ALJ’s dismissal demonstrates a “fundamental misunderstanding or oversight” of the principles of equitable tolling, continuing violations, and the STAA. 46 We disagree.
45F

OALJ initially accepting jurisdiction does not mean that a case cannot be dismissed on the basis of timeliness. Moreover, Complainant has not adequately explained how OALJ initially accepting his claim demonstrates that the principles of equitable tolling apply, how it supports a continuing violation, or how it is contrary to the STAA.

                                CONCLUSION 47 46F




  Accordingly, we AFFIRM the ALJ’s Order dismissing the complaints.

  SO ORDERED.




                              ELLIOT M. KAPLAN
                              Administrative Appeals Judge



                              PHILIP G. KIKO
                              Administrative Appeals Judge

46 Comp. Br. at 6.
47 In any appeal of this Decision and Order that may be filed, we note that the appropriately named party is the Secretary, Department of Labor (not the Administrative Review Board).