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:

ALEX ROBLES,

COMPLAINANT,

ARB CASE NO. 2024-0034

ALJ CASE NO. 2023-STA-00016

ALJ JOHN M. HERKE

v.

DATE: July 15, 2025

QUIRCH FOODS, LLC,

RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:

Alex Robles; Pro Se; Hammond, Louisiana

For the Respondent:

Bayardo E. Alemán, Esq.; Rayda Alemán, Esq.; Alemán Law; Coral

Gables, Florida

Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and KAPLAN and

BURRELL, Administrative Appeals Judges

DECISION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DISMISSAL

This case arises under the employee-protection provisions of the Surface

Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), as amended.1 Complainant Alex

Robles filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor’s Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), alleging that Respondent Quirch Foods

LLC, violated the STAA. OSHA determined there was no violation, after which

Complainant requested a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to

the case dismissed Complainant’s case after Complainant removed the matter

49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); see also 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2025) (the STAA’s implementing

regulations).

1

2

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 31105(c) to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana. Complainant, pro se, filed a Petition for Review with the

Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board). For the following reasons, we

AFFIRM the ALJ’s decision and deny Complainant’s appeal.

BACKGROUND

Complainant filed a claim with OSHA under the STAA, 49 U.S.C. § 31105.

OSHA dismissed the claim, determining there was no reasonable cause to believe

Respondent violated the STAA by terminating Complainant. The parties pursued

arbitration. Meanwhile, Complainant requested a hearing with an ALJ. Before the

ALJ, Complainant and Respondent had difficulty completing discovery, resulting in

the ALJ ordering Complainant to produce documents and respond to

interrogatories. The ALJ also ordered Complainant to sit for a deposition.

During a hearing regarding the ALJ’s discovery orders, Complainant

indicated he wished to file contempt proceedings against the ALJ and the Secretary

of Labor for colluding with Respondent’s counsel.2 The ALJ stayed the case while

Complainant pursued these options.3

On January 26, 2024, Complainant informed the ALJ that he had filed a

complaint in federal district court on January 25, 2024.4 The ALJ asked

Complainant to file a copy of the federal complaint by February 9, 2024, which

Complainant did on or about February 7, 2024.5 Accordingly, on March 26, 2024,

the ALJ, noting more than 60 days had passed since the filing in federal court, there

had been no objection or other opposition filed with the ALJ, and there had been no

remand order from the District Court, dismissed the case.6 Complainant appealed

this dismissal to the ARB.

2

Procedural Order Staying Case for Ninety Days (ALJ Oct. 31, 2023) at 1.

3

Id.

Order of Dismissal (D. & O.) at 1 (citing Robles v. Quirch Foods LLC, Case No. 2:24cv-00251 (E.D. La. Jan. 25, 2024) (hereinafter Jan. 25 E.D. La. Compl.)).

4

5

6

The Complainant filed the first page of the district court complaint with the ALJ.

Id.

3

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

from ALJ decisions and issue agency decisions in cases arising under the STAA.7

We review the ALJ’s dismissal de novo.8

DISCUSSION

The STAA provides that an employer may not discharge or otherwise

retaliate against an employee with respect to the employee’s compensation,

conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee engaged in STAA

protected activity.9 Complaints filed under the STAA are governed by the legal

burdens of proof set forth in the employee-protection provision of the Wendell H.

Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).10

To prevail on a STAA claim, a complainant must prove by a preponderance of

the evidence that he engaged in protected activity, that his employer took an

adverse employment action against him, and that the protected activity was a

contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action.11 In light of our disposition

of this matter, we limit our discussion to the issue of whether the ALJ correctly

dismissed the case under the STAA’s kick-out or removal provision.

The STAA contains a kick-out provision whereby a whistleblower may

remove the matter to federal district court.12 Under this provision, if the Secretary

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 . . . .”13 Complainant filed the OSHA complaint on May 18, 2022; the

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. 13,186 (Mar. 6, 2020).

7

Gladden v. Proctor & Gamble Co., ARB No. 2022-0012, ALJ No. 2021-SOX-00012,

slip op. at 9 (ARB May 9, 2023) (citations omitted).

8

9

49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. §1978.102(a).

10

49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1); see 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b).

11

49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iii).

12

49 U.S.C. § 31105(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.114(a).

13

49 U.S.C. § 31105(c); accord 29 C.F.R. § 1978.114(a).

4

210-day period was reached on December 14, 2022; and Complainant filed a federal

district court complaint on January 25, 2024. Because Complainant filed in federal

court under STAA’s kick-out provision and more than 210 days had passed, the ALJ

dismissed Complainant’s case on March 26, 2024.

In Complainant’s brief to the ARB, he attempts to argue the elements of his

case and matters outside of the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor, without

addressing the fact that he removed the claim to federal court.14 Respondent

counters the ARB does not have jurisdiction over the case because of the kick out

and that all of Complainant’s arguments on the merits are irrelevant for this

reason.15

We agree with Respondent. The STAA provides that “if the Secretary of

Labor has not issued a final decision within 210 days after the filing of the

complaint and if the delay is not due to the bad faith of the employee, the employee

may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district

court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action without

regard to the amount in controversy . . . .”16

We acknowledge Complainant’s pro se status.17 However, it is clear that

Complainant intended the complaint he filed in U.S. District Court as a kick out. In

a category entitled “Basis for Jurisdiction,” Complainant indicated to the District

Court that the kick out was ripe under STAA because the Secretary had failed to

issue a final decision within the 210-day period.18 Among other remedies,

Complainant asked the District Court to award damages, lost wages, compensatory

14

See generally Complainant Brief.

15

Respondent Quirch Foods, LLC’s Response Brief at 8-9.

16

49 U.S.C. § 31105(c); accord 29 C.F.R. § 1978.114(a).

The Board “‘construes arguments for self-represented litigants liberally in deference

to their lack of training in the law,’ while ‘also refrain[ing] from becoming an advocate for

the pro se litigant.”’ Kossen v. Asia Pac. Airlines, ARB No. 2023-0047, ALJ No. 2023-AIR00001, slip op. at 7 n.32 (ARB May 30, 2025) (quoting Williams v. QVC, Inc., ARB No. 20200019, ALJ No. 2018-SOX-00019, slip op. at 7 n.43 (ARB Jan 17, 2023)).

17

18

Jan. 25 E.D. La. Compl. at 2.

5

damages, and other remedies consistent with STAA.19 We, therefore, affirm the

ALJ’s dismissal of the case.20

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, given that Complainant filed a de novo complaint in this action

in the U.S. District Court as provided in 49 U.S.C. § 31105(c) and 29 C.F.R.

§1978.114(a), we hereby AFFIRM the ALJ’s decision and DISMISS Complainant’s

appeal.

SO ORDERED.

THOMAS H. BURRELL

Administrative Appeals Judge

RANDEL K. JOHNSON

Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

ELLIOT M. KAPLAN

Administrative Appeals Judge

19

Id.

49 U.S.C. § 31105(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.114(a); see also Budri v. Firstfleet, Inc., ARB

No. 2018-0055, ALJ No. 2018-STA-00033, slip op. at 2 (ARB July 30, 2019).

20