U.S. Department of Labor

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Administrative Review Board

200 Constitution Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20210-0001

IN THE MATTER OF:

JARED ASHCRAFT,

COMPLAINANT,

FIRST CITIZENS BANK,

ARB CASE NOS. 2026-0008

2026-0017

ALJ CASE NO. 2025-SOX-00035

ALJ THERESA C. TIMLIN

DATE: January 30, 2026

RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:

Jared Ashcraft; Pro Se; Las Vegas, Nevada

Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and BURRELL,

Administrative Appeals Judge

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS

This case arises under the employee protection provisions of Section 806 of

the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), as amended, and its implementing regulations. 1

On November 26, 2025, Complainant Jared Ashcraft emailed the Administrative

Review Board (ARB or Board) an Emergency Petition for Interlocutory Review and

Supervisory Relief (Petition), seeking interlocutory review of a United States

Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Order Staying Discovery

Deadlines and Denying All Pending Motions and Filings Pending Decision on

Motion to Dismiss (Order Staying Deadlines and Denying Motions), issued on

November 24, 2026, and Clarification Order, issued on November 25, 2025.

On January 12, 2026, Complainant filed a Third Addendum to Emergency Petition

for Interlocutory Review and Supervisory Relief (Third Addendum), seeking

interlocutory review of the ALJ’s subsequent Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss and Addressing Complainant’s Motion Practice (Order Denying Motion to

18 U.S.C. § 1514A; 29 C.F.R. Part 1980 (2025).

Dismiss), issued on January 6, 2026. 2 For the reasons set forth below, we deny

Complainant’s interlocutory appeals.

BACKGROUND

On or about May 22, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the U.S.

Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),

alleging that Respondent First Citizens Bank retaliated against him in violation of

SOX. 3 OSHA dismissed the complaint on June 6, 2025, and Complainant requested

a hearing with the Department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). 4

OALJ docketed the case on June 12, 2025, and the case was assigned to ALJ

Theresa C. Timlin on September 2, 2025.

Between the case’s docketing with OALJ on June 12, 2025, and the

assignment of ALJ Timlin on September 2, 2025, Complainant filed at least 20

motions, notices, and other filings with OALJ covering a range of topics, including,

among other things, notices about “recent developments,” motions to file supporting

documents, a motion for sanctions, a motion to compel, notices of alleged

deficiencies in discovery, and allegations of witness intimidation. 5

Complainant continued to frequently file after ALJ Timlin was assigned to

preside over the matter as well. Between September 2, 2025, and September 25,

2025, Complainant filed at least 22 additional motions, notices, and other filings

with the ALJ, including, among other things, a request for the ALJ to recognize

certain filings and matters to ensure “record completeness,” motions to compel

discovery, a “notice” that Respondent’s counsel was acting without having entered a

Complainant’s Petition of the Order Staying Deadlines and Denying Motions and

the Clarification Order was assigned ARB Case Number 2026-0008. Because Complainant’s

Third Addendum seeks review of a different interlocutory order (the Order Denying Motion

to Dismiss), the Board hereby assigns the Third Addendum ARB Case Number 2026-0017,

and consolidates it with ARB Case Number 2026-0008 for decisional purposes.

Order Clarifying and Modifying August 19, 2025 Minute Order at 1.

Id.

Chief ALJ Stepehen R. Henley issued Minute Orders on August 1 and 19, 2025,

instructing the parties to defer filing discovery-related motions until a presiding ALJ was

assigned, staying deadlines for Respondent to respond to Complainant’s filings, and

striking Complainant’s deposition notices. Chief ALJ Henley then issued an Order

Clarifying and Modifying August 19, 2025 Minute Order on August 21, 2025, stating that

the parties would have the opportunity to file motions and present evidence to a presiding

ALJ, stating again that the parties could not file motions or filings until the matter was

assigned, stating that any filings submitted before the assignment of an ALJ would not

become part of the official administrative record, and staying discovery. Order Clarifying

and Modifying August 19, 2025 Minute Order at 2-3.

notice of appearance, a motion for “terminating sanctions,” a motion to strike

“misrepresentations” made by Respondent’s counsel, a notice of “delay tactics” by

Respondent, copies of Complainant’s discovery requests, a motion to disqualify

Respondent’s counsel, and a motion to bar Respondent from substituting counsel.

On September 25, 2025, the ALJ issued an Order Denying All Pending

Motions and Filings (Order Denying Motions). The ALJ ruled: “Upon consideration

and given the parties’ apparent inability to engage constructively in discovery

without the tribunal’s intervention, all motions filed on behalf of Complainant and

Respondent are hereby DENIED and discovery is STAYED.” 6 The ALJ also stated

that additional directives would be provided at the Prehearing Conference,

scheduled for September 30, 2025. 7

The ALJ conducted the Prehearing Conference on September 30, 2025.

Respondent stated that it intended to file a potentially dispositive Motion to

Dismiss. 8 As a result, the ALJ stayed all discovery pending resolution of that

Motion to Dismiss. 9 Respondent ultimately filed the Motion to Dismiss on

November 14, 2025.

After the September 30 Prehearing Conference, Complainant continued to

file with the ALJ. Between September 30, 2025, and November 24, 2025,

Complainant filed at least 12 additional motions and other filings with the ALJ,

including notices about opposing counsel’s “material misstatement,” a “Notice of

Judicial Admission,” a “Notice of Preservation of Evidence,” filings concerning

Complainant potentially pursuing a “kick out” to federal district court, a motion for

default judgment, a motion for sanctions, a filing “memorializing” the ALJ’s verbal

orders during the September 30 Prehearing Conference, and a “Notice of Corrupted

Administrative Process.” Complainant also states that he attempted to submit other

filings, but they were rejected by the ALJ. 10

On November 24, 2025, the ALJ issued the Order Staying Deadlines and

Denying Motions. The ALJ stated that at the September 30 Prehearing Conference,

she “granted Respondent’s request to stay discovery, and advised that all motions

and filings were also stayed pending decision of the Motion to Dismiss.” 11

10F

Order Denying Motions at 3.

Id.

September 30, 2025 Prehearing Conference Transcript at 6.

Id. at 14.

Petition at 10-11.

Order Staying Deadlines and Denying Motions at 1-2. Complainant disputes that

the ALJ stayed all motions and other filings at the Prehearing Conference. Petition at 3, 9.

We need not resolve this dispute at this time.

Nevertheless, Complainant continued to file motions and other filings “which,

again, do not adhere to proper motion practice.” 12 The ALJ ruled: “all motions and

filings filed on behalf of Complainant are hereby DENIED and all deadlines are

hereby STAYED. The parties are advised that no other motions will be decided

until a decision is made on the pending Motion to Dismiss.” 13

11F

12F

On November 25, 2025, the ALJ issued the Clarification Order. The ALJ

clarified that she would consider Complainant’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion

to Dismiss, filed on November 15, 2025. 14 The ALJ stated that otherwise, “[a]ny

submissions filed prior to the undersigned’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss shall be

summarily rejected.” 15

13F

14F

On November 26, 2025, Complainant emailed his Petition to the Board.

In the Petition, Complainant asserts that the ALJ’s prohibition on filing “effectively

locks him out of the OALJ forum, [and] prevents him from preserving issues related

to Answer deadlines, spoliation, and alleged fraud on the tribunal . . . .” 16

Complainant also asserts that the ALJ violated his “ADA/rehabilitation-related

requests.” 17 Specifically, Complainant asserts that he requested, but had not

received a copy of, the transcript of the September 30 Prehearing Conference as an

accommodation for a disability. 18

15F

16F

17F

In the Petition, Complainant asks the Board to: (1) “vacate or modify” the

ALJ’s orders to “remove the blanket filing ban and ‘summary rejection’ directive;”

(2) direct the ALJ to accept and docket Complainant’s rejected filings; and (3) direct

the ALJ to produce the September 30 Prehearing Conference transcript. 19

18F

Complainant sent two additional emails to the Board on November 30, 2025,

attaching an Addendum to Emergency Petition for Interlocutory Review and

Supervisory Relief (First Addendum) and Second Addendum to Emergency Petition

for Interlocutory Review and Supervisory Relief (Second Addendum). Like the

Petition, the First and Second Addenda challenge the ALJ’s Order Staying

Deadlines and Denying Motions and Clarification Order. Thereafter, Complainant

Order Staying Deadlines and Denying Motions at 2.

Id. at 3.

Clarification Order at 2.

Id.

Petition at 4.

Id. at 5.

Id. at 12. Complainant states that, per the ALJ’s direction, he filed a Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) request for the transcript, but had not yet received it. Id.

Id. at 5, 23.

filed several additional “Notices” and other filings with the Board regarding his

appeal, concerns with the accuracy of the record before the ALJ, concerns with the

ALJ’s failure to provide him a copy of the September 30 Prehearing Conference

transcript, and other issues. 20

19F

On January 6, 2026, the ALJ issued the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.

In that Order, in addition to denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, the ALJ

made new orders regarding motions practice and other procedures before the ALJ.

First, the ALJ addressed Complainant’s use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The ALJ stated that she granted Complainant permission to use AI as a reasonable

accommodation in presenting his case. 21 However, the ALJ stated that Complainant

was using AI to “inundat[e] the Tribunal (and Respondent’s Counsel) with endless

motion practice.” 22 Therefore, the ALJ ordered Complainant to “limit his use of

artificial intelligence to research and drafting only. Final submission to this

Tribunal must be human generated and edited and organized in a comprehensible

and concise manner.” 23

20F

21F

22F

Next, the ALJ addressed Complainant’s practice of submitting “Notice”

filings. In addition to Motions, the ALJ stated that Complainant filed many other

“Notices,” which the ALJ said “simply reflect Complainant’s record of events in this

proceeding and do not request any form of relief.” 24 The ALJ ordered Complainant

“to refrain from filing any ‘notice’ submissions where he is not requesting

any immediate relief.” 25

23F

24F

Finally, the ALJ addressed the fact that Complainant had recorded the

September 30 Prehearing Conference without permission. 26 The ALJ reminded

Complainant that he was subject to the OALJ Rules of Practice and Procedure,

which provide that “parties, witnesses and spectators are prohibited from using

25F

Complainant also sent or copied the Board on additional emails after filing the

Petition. We need not and will not document them all here, as they are not material to our

resolution of these appeals.

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss at 2.

Id.

Id. at 7 (emphasis original).

Id. at 3.

Id. at 7 (emphasis original).

Id. at 4. Complainant notified the ALJ via email on November 30, 2025, that he

“maintains a contemporaneous personal recording (lawfully made as a participant) of the

September 30 teleconference.” Id.

video or audio recording devices to record hearings.” 27 Therefore, the ALJ ordered

Complainant “to refrain from using personal recording devices to record

any verbal communication before this Tribunal.” 28 However, the ALJ

informed Complainant that every conference, proceeding, and hearing would be

transcribed by a court reporter and that the transcript would be available to the

Complainant. 29

26F

27F

28F

On January 12, 2026, Complainant filed the Third Addendum, challenging

the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss. In the Third Addendum, Complainant asks

the Board to lift the prohibition on the use of AI to generate final submissions, lift

the prohibition on Complainant submitting “Notice” filings, and lift the prohibition

on Complainant recording proceedings before the ALJ. 30

29F

In the Third Addendum, Complainant also states that the ALJ failed to rule

on a Motion to Disqualify the ALJ he filed on December 4, 2025. 31 Complainant

asks the Board to compel the ALJ to rule on the Motion to Disqualify, or otherwise

“reassign[ ] to a neutral” ALJ. 32 Finally, Complainant asks the Board to: (1) stay a

Prehearing Conference the ALJ scheduled for January 12, 2026 (the same day the

Complainant filed the Third Addendum); (2) order the ALJ to produce the transcript

of the September 30 Prehearing Conference; and (3) order “[s]uch other relief as

necessary to preserve fair process and record integrity.” 33

30F

31F

32F

On January 15, 2026, the ALJ issued a Notice of Hearing and Pre-Hearing

Order (Pre-Hearing Order). Among other things, the Pre-Hearing Order opened

discovery. 34 The ALJ also reopened motions practice. The Pre-Hearing Order

notified the parties of the rules for motions practice and stated: “As of the date of

this Order, there are no pending motions before the undersigned. Any future

motions should be addressed to this office, copying counsel.” 35

33F

34F

Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 18.86).

Id. at 7.

Id. at 4.

Third Addendum at 5-8.

Id. at 7.

Id. at 8.

Id.

Pre-Hearing Order at 3.

Id. at 5.

JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

from ALJ decisions and issue agency decisions in cases arising under SOX. 36

This authority includes the discretion to consider interlocutory appeals “in

exceptional circumstances . . . .” 37

35F

36F

DISCUSSION

1. Most of the Issues Raised by Complainant are Moot

We decline to accept most of the issues raised in Complainant’s appeals

because they are moot. 38 As detailed above, in his appeals, Complainant asks the

Board to: (1) “vacate or modify” the Order Staying Deadlines and Denying Motions

and Clarification Order prohibiting Complainant from filing with the ALJ pending

resolution of the Motion to Dismiss; (2) direct the ALJ to accept motions

Complainant attempted to file during the prohibition period that the ALJ refused to

docket; (3) direct the ALJ to produce the September 30 Prehearing Conference

transcript; (4) lift the prohibition on using AI to draft final submissions; (5) lift the

prohibition on submitting Notice filings; (6) compel the ALJ to rule on the Motion to

Disqualify and/or appoint a new ALJ; (7) stay the January 12 Prehearing

Conference; and (8) “order such other relief as necessary to preserve fair process

and record integrity.”

37F

Complainant’s requests to vacate or modify the Order Staying Deadlines and

Denying Motions and Clarification Order, direct the ALJ to accept and docket

Complainant’s rejected motions, and direct the ALJ to rule on the Motion to

Disqualify are all moot. Although the ALJ previously and temporarily prohibited

Complainant from filing motions and other submissions, that prohibition is no

longer in effect. As the ALJ made clear in the Order Staying Deadlines and Denying

Motions and in the Clarification Order, the filing prohibition was only in effect until

the ALJ ruled on Respondent’s potentially dispositive Motion to Dismiss. The ALJ

resolved the Motion to Dismiss in Complainant’s favor in the Order Denying Motion

Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of

Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 85 Fed. Reg. 13,186 (Mar. 6, 2020).

Id.

See Video Tutorial Servs., Inc. v. MCI Telecomms., Corp., 79 F.3d 3, 5-6 (2d Cir.

1996) (dismissing interlocutory appeal as moot where interlocutory order staying

arbitration was no longer in effect; “[a]n interlocutory appeal from a temporary stay order

no longer in effect, like an interlocutory appeal from a since-expired or vacated temporary

restraining order, is the paradigm of a moot appeal”); In re Caribbean Tubular Corp., 813

F.2d 533, 534 n.2 (1st Cir. 1987) (“[W]hen an order of the district court renders a pending

interlocutory appeal moot, the court of appeals should dismiss that appeal.”).

to Dismiss issued on January 6, 2026, and the ALJ made clear that Complainant

could once again file motions, subject to applicable rules and procedures, in the PreHearing Order issued on January 15, 2026. Complainant may now file motions with

the ALJ. This includes refiling the motions that the ALJ previously declined to

docket and/or the Motion to Disqualify, 39 to the extent Complainant deems it

prudent and necessary.

38F

Complainant’s request for the Board to order the ALJ to produce the

September 30 Prehearing Conference transcript is also moot. On January 17, 2026,

Complainant filed a copy of the certified transcript from the court reporter with the

Board. Thus, Complainant clearly has now received the transcript. 40

39F

Finally, Complainant’s request to stay the January 12 Prehearing

Conference—which he did not request until the day the Prehearing Conference was

scheduled to occur—is also moot. Complainant did not specify why he believes the

Prehearing Conference should be stayed and, in any event, the date for the

Prehearing Conference has already passed.

Complainant asserts that the ALJ did not rule on the Motion to Disqualify. Third

Addendum at 7. Although Complainant is correct that the ALJ did not separately rule on

the Motion to Disqualify, Complainant filed the Motion to Disqualify during the period

when the ALJ prohibited the filing of any motion and when the ALJ made clear that any

motion filed would be summarily denied. Consistent with the ALJ’s prior orders, the ALJ

also clarified in the Pre-Hearing Order that as of January 15, 2026, “there are no pending

motions before the undersigned.” Pre-Hearing Order at 5. Additionally, we deny

Complainant’s request to appoint a new ALJ. The Board does not consider denial of

requests for recusal in interlocutory appeals. Manoharan v. HCL Am., Inc., ARB No. 20210031, ALJ Nos. 2018-LCA-00029, 2021-LCA-00009, slip op. at 4 (ARB June 30, 2021)

(citation omitted). As with the other issues raised in these appeals, Complainant may raise

any denial of recusal or disqualification of the ALJ on appeal of a final judgment, if

necessary and properly preserved.

As noted above, Complainant asserts that the ALJ violated his rights under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or the Rehabilitation Act by failing to produce

the transcript. Petition at 5, 12, 21. The Board and the ALJ, as instrumentalities of the

federal government, are not covered by the ADA, but are bound by 29 C.F.R. Part 33,

authorized, in part, by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which may require certain

accommodations for a covered individual to utilize the Board’s and the ALJ’s services.

Barnes v. R.I. Pub. Transit Auth., ARB No. 2025-0086, ALJ No. 2024-NTS-00004, slip op.

at 7 (ARB Jan. 13, 2026) (citations omitted). However, the Secretary has not given the

Board jurisdiction over claims of alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act, which must

proceed through other channels within the Department of Labor. See Secretary’s Order No.

01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative

Review Board), 85 Fed. Reg. 13,186 (Mar. 6, 2020); 29 C.F.R. Part 33.

2. Complainant’s Interlocutory Appeals Do Not Satisfy the Collateral

Order Exception

We also decline to accept Complainant’s appeals because they do not satisfy

the collateral order exception. As stated above, the Secretary of Labor’s delegation

of authority to the Board provides that interlocutory appeals should only be

considered in “exceptional circumstances.” The Board takes the Secretary’s dictate

seriously and has emphasized repeatedly that interlocutory appeals are generally

disfavored and that there is a strong policy against piecemeal appeals in stages

before the final order. 41

40F

When a party seeks interlocutory review of an ALJ’s non-final order, the

Board has elected to look to the interlocutory review procedures used by federal

courts, including requesting the trial court certify issues involving a controlling

question of law for immediate appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 42

It does not appear that Complainant requested or received ALJ certification under

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) in this case.

41F

If a party has failed to obtain ALJ certification, the Board may still consider

reviewing an interlocutory order that meets the “collateral order” exception. 43

The collateral order exception applies if the appealed decision belongs to that “small

class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and

collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too

independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred

until the whole case is adjudicated.” 44 The Board has held many times that “we

must strictly construe the collateral order exception to avoid the serious ‘hazard

that piecemeal appeals will burden the efficacious administration of justice and

unnecessarily protract litigation.’” 45

42F

43F

44F

E.g., Mitchell v. Manning Trucking, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0010, ALJ No. 2024-STA00020, slip op. at 3 (ARB Dec. 17, 2024) (citations omitted); Priddle v. United Airlines, Inc.,

ARB No. 2021-0064, ALJ No. 2020-AIR-00013, slip op. at 7 (ARB Jan. 26, 2022) (citations

omitted).

Mitchell, ARB No. 2025-0010, slip op. at 3.

Id. at 4.

Gloss v. Tata Chems. N. Am., ARB No. 2022-0054, ALJ No. 2020-CAA-00008, slip op.

at 3 (ARB Sept. 20, 2022) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546

(1949)).

Johnson v. Siemens Bldg. Techs., Inc., ARB No. 2007-0010, ALJ No. 2005-SOX00015, slip op. at 5 (ARB Jan. 19, 2007) (quoting Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig.

Steering Comm. v. Mead Corp., 614 F.2d 958, 960 n.2 (5th Cir. 1980)); accord Mohawk

Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (stressing that the collateral order

doctrine must “never be allowed to swallow the general rule that a party is entitled to a

single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered.” (internal quotation and

To fall within the collateral order exception, the order appealed must:

(1) conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) resolve an important issue

completely separate from the merits of the action; and (3) be effectively

unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. 46 Even setting aside the first two

prongs of the collateral order test, we conclude that Complainant’s appeals do not

satisfy the third prong because all the issues raised by Complainant may be

effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment of the ALJ.

45F

To be “effectively unreviewable,” the right sought to be vindicated must “be,

for all practical and legal purposes, destroyed if it were not vindicated prior to final

judgment.” 47 As long as the rights at issue “can be adequately vindicated by other

means, the chance that the litigation at hand might be speeded, or a particular

injustice averted, does not provide a basis for” immediate appellate review of an

interlocutory order. 48

46F

47F

Complainant’s appeals concern procedural rulings and orders imposed to

control the conduct of the proceedings below. The Board has repeatedly declined to

citation omitted)); Kenyatta v. Moore, 744 F.2d 1179, 1182-83, 1186 (5th Cir. 1984) (stating

that the finality rule “is not arbitrary but functional. It helps to preserve the respect due

trial judges by minimizing appellate-court inference. It reduces the ability of litigants to

harass opponents and to clog the courts through a succession of costly and time-consuming

appeals and it hence is crucial to the efficient administration of justice.”) (internal

quotations and citation omitted).

Mitchell, ARB No. 2025-0010, slip op. at 4 (citation omitted).

Priddle, ARB No. 2021-0064, slip op. at 8 (quoting In re Diet Drugs

(Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Prod. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 377 (3d Cir.

2005)).

Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107 (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also

Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 872 (1994) (“A fully litigated case

can no more be untried than the law’s proverbial bell can be unrung, and almost every

pretrial or trial order might be called ‘effectively unreviewable’ in the sense that relief from

error can never extend to rewriting history. Thus, erroneous [orders] may burden litigants

in ways that are only imperfectly reparable by appellate reversal of a final district court

judgment . . . . But if immediate appellate review were available every such time,

Congress’s final decision rule would end up a pretty puny one . . . .”); see generally CHARLES

A. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3911.4 (3d ed. Sept. 2025 update)

(“The mere burden of submitting to trial proceedings that will be wasted if the appellant’s

position is correct does not support collateral order appeal. Nor is it enough to show that a

wrong order may cause tactical disadvantages that cannot be undone even by a second trial.

The final judgment rule rests on a determination that ordinarily these costs be borne to

support the greater benefits that generally flow [from] denying interlocutory appeal.”).

interfere with an ALJ’s procedural orders in interlocutory appeals because they are

readily subject to review on appeal from a final judgment. 49

48F

Complainant contends these procedural and case-control orders would be

effectively unreviewable if not immediately considered by the Board because “the

window” to pursue the issues raised in his motions, document his concerns, and

obtain the Prehearing Conference transcript as an accommodation “will have

effectively closed.” 50 According to Complainant, “[a]n appeal from a final decision

cannot retroactively create a record that the ALJ has refused to allow to be built.” 51

We disagree. Complainant may appeal the ALJ’s decision, including her procedural

orders and any restrictions she placed on Complainant’s ability to file, at the

conclusion of the ALJ proceedings. If the Board agrees with Complainant at that

time that the ALJ erred, and that the error was not harmless, the Board can order

necessary relief. This includes remanding the case to the ALJ with appropriate

instructions for additional proceedings, including to remove filing prohibitions or

restrictions and permit Complainant to file documents and otherwise “build” the

record, if necessary and appropriate.

49F

50F

Lewis v. Deepwell Energy Servs., LLC, ARB Nos. 2025-0037, -0039, -0051, ALJ No.

2024-STA-00042, slip op. at 7-8 (ARB Apr. 23, 2025) (denying interlocutory appeals of ALJ

orders prohibiting complainant from filing, denying reconsideration, denying motion for

recusal, and denying request to certify for interlocutory appeal); Mawhinney v. Transp.

Workers Union, ARB No. 2015-0013, ALJ No. 2012-AIR-00014, slip op. at 3 (ARB Feb. 3,

2015) (declining interlocutory review concerning ALJ orders denying amendments to

arguments about individual liability and concerning alleged ex parte communications;

“the Board may fully consider and dispose of both issues he has presented, upon appeal of

the ALJ’s final order in this case, should that be necessary”); Pragasam v. Wellness Home

Health Care, Inc., ARB No. 2011-0017, ALJ No. 2010-LCA-00018, slip op. at 6 (ARB Apr.

12, 2011) (“[T]here is no viable argument that the procedural and discovery dispute issues

presented here are subject to the collateral order exception . . . . The ARB can most

certainly review the procedural issues Pragasam has raised regarding default judgment,

joinder of parties, and audio CD transcription upon appeal of the ALJ’s final decision in this

case.”); see also Meyers v. Ely, 794 F. App’x 301 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2020) (denying

interlocutory appeal of order prohibiting plaintiff from filing, pending an evidentiary

hearing).

Petition at 20.

Id.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Complainant’s interlocutory appeals.

SO ORDERED.

RANDEL K. JOHNSON

Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

THOMAS H. BURRELL

Administrative Appeals Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.