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:

SERGIO B. ROBLES,

ARB CASE NO. 2025-0058

COMPLAINANT,

MR. BULTS, INC., TEAMSTERS 731,

and WASTE MANAGEMENT,

ALJ CASE NO. 2025-STA-00050,

-00051, -00052

ALJ DREW A. SWANK

DATE: February 20, 2026

RESPONDENTS.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:

Sergio B. Robles; Pro Se; Rockford, Illinois

For the Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc.:

Tom H. Luetkemeyer, Esq.; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP; Chicago,

Illinois

For the Respondent Teamsters 731:

Rachel R. Rekowski, Esq.; Herzfeld, Suetholz, Gastel, Leniski & Wall,

PLLC; Cincinnati, Ohio

For the Respondent Waste Management:

John W. Stapleton, Esq.; Fisher & Phillips LLP; Atlanta, Georgia

Before KAPLAN and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges

DECISION AND ORDER

This case arises under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982

(STAA), as amended, and its implementing regulations. 1 Complainant Sergio B.

49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2025).

Robles filed whistleblower complaints with the U.S. Department of Labor’s

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging that Respondents

Mr. Bult’s, Inc., Teamsters 731, and Waste Management unlawfully retaliated

against him for engaging in STAA protected activity. 2 OSHA dismissed the

complaints as untimely. Complainant objected to OSHA’s determination and the

case was assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On May 7, 2025, the ALJ

dismissed the complaints as untimely. 3 Complainant petitioned the Administrative

Review Board (Board) for review of the ALJ’s Order. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

BACKGROUND

On October 6, 2023, Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. began the process of

terminating Complainant’s employment. 4 On October 9, 2023, Mr. Bults, Inc.

formally notified Complainant that his employment was terminated. 5

On January 18, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with OSHA, alleging

that Respondents Teamsters 731 and Mr. Bults, Inc. colluded and retaliated against

him by terminating him in reprisal for raising safety and health concerns in

violation of the STAA. 6 On January 21, 2025, Complainant filed another complaint

with OSHA alleging the same against Respondent Waste Management. 7 OSHA

dismissed Complainant’s complaints.

Complainant filed an objection and requested a hearing before an ALJ with

the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). On April 21, 2025, Respondent

Teamsters 731 filed a Motion to Dismiss for Untimely Complaint. 8 On April 22,

2025, the ALJ issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Complainant to show why

the motion should not be granted. 9

Complainant contended that equitable tolling was necessary to prevent

injustice, and that extraordinary circumstances were warranted because of

Respondents’ alleged withholding of evidence, concealment of an updated collective

Order Dismissing Claim Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1) (ALJ May 7, 2025)

(Order) at 1.

Id.

Id. at 2.

Id.

bargaining agreement, and ongoing interference with his complaint. 10 The ALJ

concluded that Complainant’s arguments were meritless and unpersuasive because

Complainant’s allegations were unsubstantiated. 11 The ALJ found that

Complainant had actual knowledge of the alleged adverse action on October 6, 2023,

or at the latest on October 9, 2023, when Mr. Bults, Inc. terminated his

employment, and that Complainant did not explain why he did not file his

complaint within the 180-day time period. 12 The ALJ determined that equitable

tolling did not apply, and dismissed the whistleblower complaints as untimely. 13

10F

11F

12F

Complainant filed a petition for review before the Board. Both parties filed

briefs. 14

13F

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

from ALJ decisions and issue agency decisions under the STAA. 15 The Board

reviews an ALJ’s grant of summary decision de novo under the same standard the

ALJ applies. 16 This includes pre-hearing dismissals based on timeliness. 17

14F

15F

16F

DISCUSSION

Id.

Id. at 2-3.

Complainant also filed two motions. On September 9, 2025, Complainant filed a

Notice of Respondent Mr. Bult’s, Inc. Non-Compliance with Briefing Order, contending that

Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. should be sanctioned for not filing a response brief.

Complainant cites several cases to support his argument. We deny Complainant’s motion.

Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. was not required to submit a response brief and the cases

Complainant cited to do not support his argument. Next, on September 14, 2025,

Complainant filed a Notice of Respondents’ Procedural Violations Affecting Proceedings,

reiterating his argument above as well as arguments made in his Opening Brief. We are not

persuaded by his arguments and to the extent they can be considered a motion, deny it as

well.

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

Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board (Secretary’s discretionary review of ARB

decisions)), 85 Fed. Reg. 13186 (Mar. 6, 2020).

Kirschmann v. Hampton Rds. Transit, ARB No. 2023-0002, ALJ No 2021-NTS00006, slip op. at 6 (ARB Feb. 14, 2024) (citation omitted).

Rashad v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0047, ALJ No. 2025-STA00039, slip op. at 4 (ARB Aug. 14, 2025) (citation omitted).

Summary decision is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to

any material fact and the movant is entitled to decision as a matter of law.” 18 In

considering a motion for summary decision, the Board views the evidence, and

makes all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party. 19 If the moving party demonstrates an absence of evidence supporting the

non-moving party’s position, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish

the existence of an issue of fact that could affect the outcome of the litigation. 20 The

non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations, speculation, or denials, but

must instead set forth specific facts on each issue upon which the non-moving party

would bear the ultimate burden of proof. 21 If the non-moving party fails to show an

essential element of their case, there can be no “genuine issue of material fact,”

since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element necessarily renders

all other facts immaterial. 22

17F

18F

19F

20F

21F

A complainant pursuing a whistleblower retaliation claim under the STAA

must meet certain deadlines. 23 These deadlines apply whether a complainant is

represented by counsel or is proceeding pro se. 24 Complainants are responsible for

determining which statute, and which deadline, applies to their case and for

meeting that deadline. 25 “[I]gnorance of the law is no excuse” for missing a filing

deadline. 26 Employees alleging employer retaliation in violation of the STAA must

file their complaints with OSHA within 180 days of the alleged retaliatory act. 27

22F

23F

24F

25F

26F

29 C.F.R. § 18.72(a).

Judy v. Covenant Transp., ARB No. 2021-0015, ALJ No. 2019-STA-00054, slip op. at

4 (ARB Nov. 8, 2021) (citation omitted).

See Kirschmann, ARB No. 2023-0002, slip op. at 6 (citations omitted).

Id. (citation omitted).

White v. Carl Perry Enter., Inc., ARB No. 2014-0024, ALJ No. 2013-STA-00013, slip

op. at 4 (ARB Dec. 10, 2015) (“failure to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of

material fact on any one of these essential elements means that a complainant cannot

prevail on his retaliation claim”).

49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1).

Jeanty v. Lily Transp. Corp., ARB No. 2019-0005, ALJ No. 2018-STA-00013, slip op.

at 12 (ARB May 13, 2020) (citation omitted) (A complainant “is not excused from the rules

of practice and procedure applicable to this proceeding merely because of his [or her] pro se

status.”).

Mehrotra v. Gen. Elec. Co., ARB No. 2022-0060, ALJ No. 2017-SOX-00014, slip op. at

4 (ARB Sept. 21, 2023).

Id. (citing Martin v. Paragon Foods, ARB No. 2022-0058, ALJ No. 2021-FDA-00001,

slip op. at 6 (ARB June 8, 2023) (citation omitted)).

49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1).

The Board has found that the statutes of limitation in whistleblower cases

begin to run on the date an employee receives “final, definitive, and unequivocal

notice” of an adverse employment decision. 28 The claim accrues on “[t]he date that

an employer communicates a decision to implement such a decision, rather than the

date the consequences of the decision are felt.” 29 The Board may modify a filing

deadline under equitable tolling principles, which focus on a complainant’s

“excusable ignorance of the employer’s discriminatory act.” 30

27F

28F

29F

Equitable tolling is “a rare and ‘extraordinary measure that applies only

when plaintiff is prevented from filing despite exercising that level of diligence

which could reasonably be expected in the circumstances.’” 31 The Board has

recognized several principal situations in which the limitations period may be

tolled, including: (1) when the movant has raised the precise statutory claim in

issue but has done so in the wrong forum; (2) when the movant has in some

extraordinary way been prevented from filing; and (3) when the movant has some

excusable ignorance of the respondent’s discriminatory act. 32 Complainant bears

the burden of justifying the application of equitable tolling. 33 To invoke equitable

tolling, the claim must be brought within a reasonable time after the complainant

“has obtained, or by due diligence could have obtained, the necessary information”

giving rise to the claim. 34

30F

31F

32F

33F

Here, Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. terminated Complainant’s employment on

October 9, 2023. 35 Complainant did not file his OSHA whistleblower complaints

against Respondents Mr. Bults, Inc. and Teamsters 731 until January 18, 2025, and

against Respondent Waste Management until January 21, 2025, approximately

nine months after the 180-day deadline. 36 Thus, Complainant’s complaints are

untimely.

34F

35F

Mehrotra, ARB No. 2022-0060, slip op. at 5 (citation omitted).

Id. (citations omitted).

Martin, ARB No. 2022-0058, slip op. at 8 (citations omitted).

Id. at 9 (citation omitted).

Id. (citations omitted).

Judy, ARB No. 2021-0015, slip op. at 4 (quoting Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,

920 F.2d 446, 453 (7th Cir. 1990)).

Order at 1.

Id.

Complainant contends that the ALJ erred in finding that equitable tolling did

not apply. 37 Specifically, Complainant alleges that Respondents have a systemic

pattern of obstructing investigations. 38 We are not persuaded. Complainant has not

provided evidence to support these allegations and even if he had, he has not

explained how these circumstances prevented him from filing a timely

whistleblower claim. As the ALJ found, these accusations are meritless and without

sufficient proof of either manifest injustice or that equitable tolling applies. Thus,

Complainant’s OSHA complaints are untimely and equitable tolling does not apply.

36F

37F

Next, Complainant contends that the continuing violations doctrine applies. 39

Specifically, Complainant alleges that continuing violations are demonstrated by

unpaid wages for training purposes, Respondents withholding evidence,

Respondents’ alleged use of fraudulent documents in Complainant’s unemployment

case, Respondents’ interference with his complaints, and Respondent Teamsters

731’s denial of his grievance and arbitration rights. 40

38F

39F

The continuing violations doctrine may allow a complainant “who ordinarily

would be unable to recover damages for discrete acts of discrimination falling

outside the limitations period [to] avoid that bar if those acts are shown to be part of

a pattern of discrimination anchored by acts that occurred within the limitations

period.” 41 The continuing violation doctrine is not a grounds for tolling, but instead

“forestalls the commencement of the limitations period for as long as the continuing

violation is ongoing.” 42 The continuing violations doctrine does not apply to discrete

acts of alleged discrimination. 43 Discrete acts include “termination, failure to

promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire.” 44 The continuing violation doctrine is

generally applied in the context of hostile work environment claims. 45

40F

41F

42F

43F

44F

We conclude that the continuing violations doctrine does not apply because

the alleged adverse actions taken in this matter were all discrete acts. As the ALJ

Complainant’s (Comp.) Brief (Br.) at 8, 22-23.

Id. at 15-16.

Id. at 5-6.

Id. at 6, 12-14.

Trivedi v. Gen. Elec., ARB No. 2022-0026, ALJ No. 2022-SOX-00005, slip op. at 9

(ARB Aug. 24, 2022) (citation omitted).

Woods v. Boeing-South Carolina, ARB No. 2013-0035, ALJ No. 2011-AIR-00009, slip

op. at 2 n.3 (ARB Mar. 20, 2014) (citation omitted).

Id. (citation omitted).

Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114 (2002).

See id. at 115-21.

found, Complainant’s allegations that the alleged adverse actions constituted a

continuing violation lack merit and are unsubstantiated. Complainant has simply

not demonstrated that any of these allegations are part of a pattern of

discrimination that is anchored by acts that occurred within the limitations period.

Thus, the continuing violations doctrine does not apply.

Lastly, Complainant also asserts that, because the ALJ initially accepted

jurisdiction of his complaint and established a hearing schedule, the ALJ’s

dismissal demonstrates a “fundamental misunderstanding or oversight” of the

principles of equitable tolling, continuing violations, and the STAA. 46 We disagree.

OALJ initially accepting jurisdiction does not mean that a case cannot be dismissed

on the basis of timeliness. Moreover, Complainant has not adequately explained

how OALJ initially accepting his claim demonstrates that the principles of

equitable tolling apply, how it supports a continuing violation, or how it is contrary

to the STAA.

45F

CONCLUSION 47

46F

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the ALJ’s Order dismissing the complaints.

SO ORDERED.

ELLIOT M. KAPLAN

Administrative Appeals Judge

PHILIP G. KIKO

Administrative Appeals Judge

Comp. Br. at 6.

In any appeal of this Decision and Order that may be filed, we note that the

appropriately named party is the Secretary, Department of Labor (not the Administrative

Review Board).

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.