Wang v. Capgemini America Inc. (agency decision, May 20, 2026)

Wang v. Capgemini America Inc. (DOL ARB 2026-0038): Section 11(c) appeal dismissed

Decision type
agency decision
Docket
ARB 2026-0038
Decided
May 20, 2026
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable agency precedent
Checked against source
2026-09-04
Official source

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable agency precedent from 2026, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Final ARB decision
This order is a final action of the Administrative Review Board under 29 C.F.R. § 26.1(b), which provides that the Board acts as fully and finally as the Secretary of Labor for matters within its authority. The Board dismissed the appeal because Section 11(c) claims are outside its delegated jurisdiction.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official agency release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release

Plain-English summary

John Xiaozhong Wang asked the Administrative Review Board to review OSHA's dismissal of his complaint against Capgemini America Inc. He alleged that the company violated Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in connection with his termination. The ARB explained that the Secretary of Labor delegated authority to the Board only for specified statutes and regulations. Section 11(c) appeals are not among those authorities, and the applicable regulations identify another appeal route. The Board dismissed the case.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authorities: 29 U.S.C. § 660(c); 29 C.F.R. Part 1977; and 29 C.F.R. § 26.1(b)
  • Outcome: The ARB dismissed the appeal because it lacked jurisdiction over Section 11(c) claims.
  • Key point: Section 11(c) complaints are not appealable to the ARB under the Secretary's delegated authorities.

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:
JOHN XIAOZHONG WANG,
COMPLAINANT,

ARB CASE NO. 2026-0038
DATE: May 20, 2026

v.
CAPGEMINI AMERICA INC.,
RESPONDENT.
Appearances:
John Xiaozhong Wang; Pro Se; Farmington Hills, Michigan Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and KAPLAN, Administrative Appeals Judge ORDER OF DISMISSAL On May 12, 2026, Complainant John Xiaozhong Wang filed with the Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) a “Petition for Review — Identification of OSHA’s Errors, Failures, and Prejudicial Findings” (Petition for Review), along with an April 24, 2026 determination letter (Determination Letter) from Nathan Terwilliger, Assistant Regional Administrator for the Chicago Regional Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). On May 20, 2026, Complainant filed four additional documents: (1) a “Supplemental Filing of Complaint,” (2) a second “Supplemental Filing of Complaint,” (3) a second “Petition for Review,” and (4) a “Combined ARB Filing.” It appears from the materials filed by Complainant that he filed a complaint against Respondent Capgemini America Inc. on April 14, 2025, alleging violations of Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 660(c) (Section 11(c)), related to the termination of his employment from Respondent. In the Determination Letter, OSHA dismissed Complainant’s complaint because it did “not have reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 11(c) . . . occurred.”

2

In the Petition for Review, Complainant asks the Board to review OSHA’s Determination Letter. The Secretary of Labor has delegated authority to the ARB to hear and decide appeals from decisions of United States Department of Labor Administrative Law Judges and the Administrator of the Department’s Wage and Hour Division under specific statutes and regulations.1 The ARB’s jurisdiction is limited and it can only hear appeals arising under the statutes and authorities specifically delegated to it by the Secretary of Labor.2 The Board does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals arising under Section 11(c).3 The procedures for Section 11(c) complaints can be found in 29 C.F.R. Part 1977 and the Determination Letter included information on how Complainant could appeal to the Director of the Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs. Accordingly, we DISMISS this case. SO ORDERED.

RANDEL K. JOHNSON
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

ELLIOT M. KAPLAN
Administrative Appeals Judge

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). 1

See Adm’r, Wage & Hour Div., U.S. Dep’t of Lab. v. Five M’s, LLC, ARB No. 20190014, ALJ Nos. 2015-FLS-00010, -00011, slip op. at 14 (ARB Nov. 13, 2020) (“The Board was created by delegation from the Secretary of Labor and, therefore, has a limited and defined jurisdiction and scope of authority.”). 2

See generally Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020, 85 Fed. Reg. at 13186-87 (listing the statutes and regulations delegated to the ARB, which do not include Section 11(c)). 3

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace