Christopher v. Prime Logistics Corp (agency decision, July 7, 2026)

Plain-English summary

Wesley Christopher alleged that Prime Logistics and related respondents retaliated against him in violation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. While the case was pending before the Department of Labor, he filed a civil action in federal district court under the STAA's kick-out provision, which allows an employee to sue after 210 days without a final decision from the Secretary. The ALJ reconsidered an earlier dismissal and concluded that the district-court filing was timely, then dismissed the administrative case because the filing divested the Department of Labor's tribunals of jurisdiction. The ARB declined to accept review for the same jurisdictional reason and administratively closed the matter.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 31105(c); 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.1(a), 1978.110(b), and 1978.114(a)
• Outcome: The ARB declined to accept review and administratively closed the case after Christopher filed in federal district court under the STAA kick-out provision.
• Key point: A timely STAA kick-out filing in federal district court divests the Department of Labor's adjudicatory tribunals, including the ARB, of jurisdiction over the matter.

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:


    WESLEY CHRISTOPHER,                            ARB CASE NO. 2026-0051

                COMPLAINANT,                       ALJ CASE NO. 2026-STA-00005
                                                   ALJ SEAN M. RAMALEY
         v.
                                                   DATE: July 7, 2026
    PRIME LOGISTICS CORP, PRIME
    LOG LLC, PRIME LOGISTICS LLC,
    and PHILIP ARNAUDOV,

                RESPONDENTS.


Before BURRELL and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges


                     ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

       This case arises under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
(STAA), as amended, and its implementing regulations.1 Complainant Wesley
Christopher filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), alleging that Respondents Prime
Logistics, Prime Log LLC, Prime Logistics LLC, and Philip Arnaudov unlawfully
retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity.2 On September 16, 2025,
OSHA issued the Secretary’s Findings, concluding that there was no reasonable
cause to believe that Respondents violated the STAA.3 Complainant thereafter filed
objections and requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law Judges
(OALJ).4

1       49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2026).
2       Order of Dismissal at 1.
3       Id.
4       Id.
                                             2


        The matter was assigned to a United States Department of Labor
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on February 10, 2026.5 On April 9, 2026,
Complainant, through counsel, informed the ALJ that he was in the process of
seeking removal to United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(District Court) under the STAA’s kick-out provision.6 Meanwhile, a telephonic
prehearing conference remained scheduled for April 16, 2026.7 Complainant did not
file a prehearing statement or a copy of the district court complaint with the ALJ
prior to the prehearing conference.8 The ALJ convened the prehearing conference,
but neither party appeared.9 Accordingly, the ALJ issued an Order to Show Cause,
directing Complainant to show good cause why the case should not be dismissed for
failure to attend the prehearing conference.10

      Also on April 16, 2026, Complainant filed a civil action in the District Court,
captioned Christopher v. P Logistics X Corp. f/k/a Prime Logistics Corp., et al., No.
1:26-cv-04262 (N.D. Ill.).11 On April 20, 2026, Complainant emailed the OALJ’s
general filing email address and attached a Notice of Filing, a Certificate of Service,
and the file-stamped copy of the district court complaint.12 However, Complainant
did not respond to the Order to Show Cause.13

       On June 8, 2026, the ALJ issued an Order of Dismissal.14 Later that same
day, Complainant moved for reconsideration, requesting that the ALJ vacate the
dismissal with prejudice and instead enter a dismissal without prejudice to reflect
his exercise of the STAA’s kick-out provision.15 In the alternative, Complainant

5      Id.
6      Id.
7      See id.
8      Id.
9      Id. at 2.
10     Id.
11      Complainant-Petitioner’s Petition for Review of the June 8, 2026 Order of Dismissal
(Petition for Review) at 6.
12     Id.
13     Order of Dismissal at 2.
14     The ALJ acknowledged that he was aware, when he issued the Order of Dismissal,
that Complainant filed a complaint in the District Court. Id.
15    Complainant’s Verified Motion for Reconsideration of the June 8, 2026 Order of
Dismissal, to Vacate the Dismissal with Prejudice, and to Enter a Dismissal without
                                              3


requested that the ALJ set aside the dismissal based on mistake, inadvertence, or
excusable neglect, and grant an extension of time if the district court filing was
found to be untimely or procedurally deficient.16

       On June 22, 2026, Complainant petitioned the Administrative Review Board
(ARB or Board) for review of the Order of Dismissal, and the matter was
administratively assigned ARB Case Number 2026-0051. While Complainant’s
Petition for Review was pending before the Board, the ALJ issued an Order
Granting Reconsideration and Order of Dismissal, concluding that Complainant’s
district court filing was timely despite being sent to the wrong OALJ email
address.17 The ALJ then removed the sanction basis for the dismissal, but dismissed
the case because Complainant’s district court filing divested the OALJ of
jurisdiction, making dismissal a ministerial closure rather than a penalty.18

       The Board declines to accept the Petition for Review19 because it lacks
jurisdiction to proceed further in this matter. The STAA provides that if the
Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision within 210 days, an employee may
bring an action at law or equity in the appropriate district court, which “shall have
jurisdiction over such an action . . . .”20 Complainant filed his complaint with OSHA
on November 15, 2024. More than 210 days elapsed without the Secretary issuing a
final decision. Complainant then filed in federal district court on April 16, 2026,
pursuant to the STAA’s kick-out provision.

      Complainant’s district court filing divested the Department of Labor’s
adjudicatory tribunals, including the Board, of jurisdiction over this matter.
Accordingly, the Board lacks jurisdiction to proceed further in this case. For this
reason, we hereby administratively close this matter.




Prejudice Reflecting Complainant’s Exercise of the STAA Kick-Out Provision (49 U.S.C. §
31105(c)); and, in the Alternative, for Relief from Order Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.1(a) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) (Motion for Reconsideration) at 5-6, 8.
16     Id. at 6-8.
17     Order Granting Reconsideration and Order of Dismissal at 2.
18     Id. at 2-3.
19     See 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(b).
20     49 U.S.C. § 31105(c); accord 29 C.F.R. § 1978.114(a).
                4



SO ORDERED.




              THOMAS H. BURRELL
              Administrative Appeals Judge




              PHILIP G. KIKO
              Administrative Appeals Judge