U.S. Department of Labor

U.S. Department of Labor

Administrative Review Board

200 Constitution Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20210-0001

IN THE MATTER OF:

RICKY TYSON,

ARB CASE NO. 2025-0041

COMPLAINANT,

ALJ CASE NO. 2024-STA-00043

ALJ THERESA C. TIMLIN

v.

DATE: April 7, 2025

R.E. GARRISON TRUCKING, INC.,

RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:

Spencer E. Bowley, Esq.; The Rice Firm, LLC; Birmingham, Alabama

For the Respondent:

Breanna Harris Young, Esq.; Starnes Davis Florie LLP; Birmingham,

Alabama; and Shay Persall, Esq.; Shay Persall Law, LLC; Cullman,

Alabama

Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and THOMPSON,

Administrative Appeals Judge

ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

PER CURIAM:

This case arises under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982

(STAA), as amended.1 Ricky Tyson (Complainant) filed a complaint against R.E.

1

49 U.S.C. § 31105(a), as implemented by the regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978

2

Garrison Trucking, Inc. (Respondent) alleging Respondent violated the employee

protection provisions of STAA. On February 25, 2025, a United States Department

of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order Dismissing Case for

Failure to Prosecute and Comply with Court Orders (D. & O.). In the D. & O., the

ALJ noted that Complainant failed to take any meaningful action to advance the

case and failed to comply with multiple orders issued by the ALJ.2

Any party seeking review of an ALJ decision “must file a written petition for

review with the” Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) “within 14 days of

the date of the decision of the ALJ.”3 Accordingly, Complainant had until March 11,

2025, to file a timely petition for review with the ARB.

On March 11, 2025, Complainant filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time for

Filing Petition for Review (Motion for Extension) with the ARB, and the case was

administratively assigned ARB Case Number 2025-0041. In the Motion for

Extension, Complainant requested an extension to file a petition for review of the

D. & O., noting Complainant’s counsel would be “prepared to file a Petition for

Review” by “March 14, 2025.”4

On March 13, 2025, the ARB issued an Order Granting Complainant’s

Motion for Extension (Extension Order), allowing Complainant until March 14,

2025 to file a petition for review because “Complainant filed the motion for an

extension of time before the deadline to file a petition for review and provided good

cause . . . .”5 However, the ARB “cautioned that no further requests for an extension

of time will be granted.”6

Complainant did not file a petition for review by March 14, 2025, as required

by the ARB’s Extension Order. Furthermore, to date, Complainant has not filed any

additional communications with the ARB. Thus, Complainant has not filed a

petition for review of the ALJ’s D. & O. Given Complainant’s failure to comply with

the ARB’s Extension Order and the requirement to file a petition for review under

(2024).

2

D. & O. at 4.

29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a). In addition, the Secretary of Labor has delegated authority

to the ARB to consider petitions for review under the STAA. 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).

3

4

Motion for Extension at 1.

5

Extension Order at 1.

6

Id. at 2.

3

29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(a), the Board orders that this matter be administratively

closed.7

If either party is dissatisfied with this Order of Administrative Closure, the

dissatisfied party may file a reconsideration motion with the Board.8 We note the

Board grants reconsideration under limited circumstances when a movant has

demonstrated: (i) material differences in fact or law from those presented to the

Board of which the moving party could not have known through reasonable

diligence, (ii) new material facts that occurred after the Board’s decision, (iii) a

change in the law after the Board’s decision, or (iv) failure to consider material facts

presented to the Board before its decision.9 The foregoing circumstances are not

Hope v. Performance Food Serv. Corp., ARB No. 2024-0031, ALJ No. 2023-STA00080, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 30, 2024) (Order of Administrative Closure) (administratively

closing case because complainant’s filing did not constitute a petition for review).

7

A party may move the ARB to reconsider its decision upon the filing of a motion for

reconsideration within a “reasonable time” of the date on which the Board issued decision.

DeBuse v. Corr Flight S., ARB No. 2023-0066, ALJ No. 2020-AIR-00015, slip op. at 2 (ARB

Feb. 28, 2025) (Order Denying Reconsideration) (citation omitted). In applying this

timeliness requirement, the Board has presumed a motion for reconsideration is timely

when the motion was filed within a short time after the decision. Id. (citation omitted). The

Board has also “granted reconsideration where a petition, though filed after a longer period,

raised [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 60(b)-type grounds or showed ‘good cause’ for

the delay.” Id. at 2-3 (citation omitted).

8

Kossen v. Empire Airlines, ARB No. 2022-0004, ALJ No. 2019-AIR-00022, slip op. at

2 (ARB July 19, 2023) (Order Denying Reconsideration) (citation omitted).

9

4

exclusive, and a complainant’s inability to satisfy one is not necessarily fatal to a

reconsideration motion.10

SO ORDERED.

RANDEL K. JOHNSON

Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

ANGELA W. THOMPSON

Administrative Appeals Judge

Cooley v. Misa Imports Inc., ARB No. 2025-0005, ALJ No. 2024-SOX-00037, slip op.

at 3 (ARB Jan. 22, 2025) (quotations omitted) (Order Granting Reconsideration, Vacating

Decision and Order Dismissing Petition for Review, and Reestablishing Briefing Schedule)

(granting reconsideration in part because the Board’s orders were not “brought to the

counsel’s attention.”).

10