Johnson v. United Parcel Service (agency decision, August 8, 2025)

Plain-English summary

Jacquelyn Johnson petitioned for review of an order dismissing her STAA complaint against United Parcel Service for failure to prosecute. Her petition was due April 4, 2025, but she filed it on May 23. Johnson said she had overlooked the emailed decision among other filing notifications and suggested that decisions also be mailed. She did not respond to the employer's dismissal motion after the Board gave her an opportunity to do so. The Board recognized that the 14-day deadline could be modified on equitable grounds but found no qualifying basis presented here. It dismissed the petition as untimely.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a)
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as untimely.
• Key point: Overlooking an emailed decision did not establish grounds to extend this STAA appeal 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:

JACQUELYN JOHNSON, ARB CASE NO. 2025-0064

            COMPLAINANT,                       ALJ CASE NO. 2024-STA-00069
                                               ALJ DIERDRA M. HOWARD
     v.
                                               DATE: August 8, 2025

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,

            RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Jacquelyn Johnson, Pro Se, Carol Stream, Illinois

For the Respondent:
Charles F. Trowbridge, Esq.; Littler Mendelson, P.C., Tysons Corner,
Virginia; Maayan Deker, Esq.; Littler Mendelson, P.C.; New York,
New York

Before KAPLAN, BURRELL, and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges

                  DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING
                COMPLAINANT’S PETITION AS UNTIMELY

  This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Surface

Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) and its implementing regulations.1 On May 23, 2025, Complainant Jacquelyn Johnson filed a Petition for Review of a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Decision and Order dismissing Complainant’s complaint issued on March 21, 2025, for failure to prosecute. On May 29, 2025, the Administrative Review Board (Board) issued a Notice of Appeal Acceptance, Electronic Filing Requirements, and Briefing Order,

1 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2024). 2

constituting the Board’s acceptance of the Petition for Review.

   In Complainant’s Petition, she acknowledges that the Petition is untimely

and asserts that she discovered the email notification of the ALJ’s decision mixed in with other notifications from the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Asserting a technical failure, Complainant states she did not see the Order when it was first received because she assumed it was a notification associated with one of her filings at the time. She claims the Department would be better served if it sends notifications of decisions by both mail as well as by email through the e-filing/e- serve system.

   On June 10, 2025, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, indicating, among

other arguments, that the Petition for Review was untimely filed. On June 17, 2025, the ARB issued an Order notifying Complainant of her ability to respond to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. Complainant did not respond.

   Pursuant to the STAA’s implementing regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a),

“[a] petition must be filed within 14 days of the date of the decision of the ALJ.” Under the STAA’s 14-day period, a petition for review was due on or before April 4, 2025.2 Complainant filed the Petition in this case on May 23, 2025, more than 60 days past the ALJ’s decision. The STAA’s timeline for petitions for review is not jurisdictional and subject to equitable modification.3 Complainant, however, does not argue that Respondent misled her or that she raised the precise statutory claim in issue but has done so in the wrong forum.4 Nor does Complainant argue that Respondent’s acts or omissions have lulled her into forgoing prompt attempts to vindicate her rights.5 Accordingly, because Complainant’s Petition for Review is untimely and no qualifying grounds for equitable modification are present or claimed, we DISMISS the Petition.

2 See O’Barr v. Builders Transp. Co., LLC, ARB No. 2013-0012, ALJ No. 2012-STA- 00027, slip op. at 3-4 (ARB Nov. 29, 2012). 3 Id. at 2 (citations omitted). 4 See Martin v. Paragon Foods, ARB No. 2022-0058, ALJ No. 2021-FDA-00001, slip op. 8-9 (ARB June 8, 2023). 5 See id. 3

SO ORDERED.

          THOMAS H. BURRELL
          Administrative Appeals Judge


           ELLIOT M. KAPLAN
           Administrative Appeals Judge


          PHILIP G. KIKO
          Administrative Appeals Judge