Monk v. Hubbell Inc. (agency decision, November 18, 2025)

Plain-English summary

Nathaniel Monk sent the Board a copy of an ALJ’s decision denying his pipeline safety retaliation complaint against Hubbell. The Board explained that a copy of the decision did not satisfy the requirement for a written petition identifying specific objections. It gave Monk a deadline to file a proper petition and warned that the matter would otherwise be closed. He filed no petition and made no further response. The Board administratively closed the matter without reviewing the ALJ’s findings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 60129; 29 C.F.R. § 1981.110(a)
• Outcome: Matter administratively closed because no petition for review was filed.
• Key point: An appellant must identify objections in a written petition; sending the ALJ’s decision alone does not meet the regulation.

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:


NATHANIEL MONK,                                ARB CASE NO. 2025-0091

            COMPLAINANT,                       ALJ CASE NO. 2021-PSI-00003
                                               ALJ JOHN P. SELLERS, III
     v.
                                               DATE: November 18, 2025
HUBBELL INC.,

            RESPONDENT.

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

                 ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

   This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Pipeline

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (PSIA) and its implementing regulations. 1 0F

Complainant Nathaniel Monk filed a complaint against Respondent Hubbell Inc. with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration on October 12, 2020, alleging Respondent violated the PSIA. On August 27, 2025, a U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Decision and Order Denying Complaint (D. & O.), ruling against Complainant and denying his Complaint. On September 11, 2025, Complainant filed a copy of the D. & O. with the Administrative Review Board (Board).

   The Secretary of Labor has delegated authority to the Board to consider

petitions for review under the PSIA. 2 Complainant, however, failed to file a petition
1F

for review. The PSIA’s implementing regulations state that a party seeking review

1 49 U.S.C. § 60129; 29 C.F.R. Part 1981 (2025). 2 Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 85 Fed. Reg. 13186 (Mar. 6, 2020); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1981.110(a). 2

of an ALJ’s decision must file a “written petition for review” with the Board, that the petition for review “must specifically identify the findings, conclusions, or orders to which exception is taken,” and that “[a]ny exception not specifically urged ordinarily will be deemed to have been waived by the parties.”3 Filing a copy of the D. & O, without filing a separate written petition for review identifying exceptions to the ALJ’s findings, conclusions, or orders, does not satisfy this regulatory requirement.

   Accordingly, the Board issued an Order on September 22, 2025, directing

Complainant to file a written petition for review in compliance with 29 C.F.R. § 1981.110(a) by October 2, 2025. The Board cautioned Complainant that if it did not receive a petition for review as ordered, it would administratively close this case.

   As of the date of this Order, Complainant has not filed a petition for review or

made any other response to or communication with the Board. Thus, no petition for review of the D. & O. has been filed. Consequently, the Board hereby ORDERS that this matter be ADMINSITRATIVELY CLOSED.

  SO ORDERED.




                              RANDEL K. JOHNSON
                              Chief Administrative Appeals Judge



                             THOMAS H. BURRELL
                             Administrative Appeals Judge

3 29 C.F.R. § 1981.110(a).