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:

CASSANDRA MCMILLAN,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,

LOCAL UNION 2145,

ARB CASE NOS. 2024-0044

ALJ CASE NO. 2021-SOC-00003

ALJ WILLIAM P. FARLEY

DATE: February 27, 2025

RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:

Cassandra McMillan; Pro Se; Yorktown, Virginia

For the Respondent:

April L. Fuller; Roberts Labor Law and Consulting, L.L.C.; Columbia,

Maryland

Before THOMPSON and ROLFE, Administrative Appeals Judges

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

PER CURIAM:

This case arises under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978

(CSRA), 1 and the Standards of Conduct (SOC) regulations issued pursuant to the

CSRA. 2 On January 31, 2025, the Board issued a Decision and Order Reversing

ALJ’s Recommended Decision and Order. In this decision, the Board reversed the

0F

1F

1

5 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq.

2

29 C.F.R. Part 458 (2024).

2

ALJ’s recommended remedial order and ordered Respondent to reimburse

Complainant $1.72 for each payday during the period from February 1, 2020,

through December 31, 2022.

On February 12, 2025, Complainant filed a Motion for Clarification arguing

that the ALJ did not err when he issued the Recommended Decision and Order

Awarding Remedy. Complainant also requested the Board clarify what effect

accepting the ordered reimbursement will have on other members of Local 2145. We

will treat this motion as a request for reconsideration. 3

2F

The Board will reconsider a decision and order only under limited

circumstances, which include whether the 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. 4 Complainant has not demonstrated any of the foregoing. Although

Complainant has stated that “the Board did not have a chance to review the

transcripts from the conference call with Mrs. McMillan and Judge Farley” and the

Board would have issued a different decision had it done so, the Board has access to

and has reviewed the entire record in this case. 5 Complainant does not present

material differences in fact or law from those presented to the Board, new material

facts that occurred after the Board’s decision, or a change in law that occurred after

the Board’s decision.

3F

4F

The Board will take this opportunity, however, to clarify that the

Complainant’s acceptance of the relief ordered by the Board has no effect on the

rights of non-parties, including other members of Local 2145. Further, the Board

will remind Complainant of the requirements articulated in the Board’s Notice of

Appeal Acceptance, Electronic Filing Requirements, and Briefing Order (Briefing

Order). The Briefing Order requires that, before filing any motion or other request

See, e.g., Cooley v. MISA Imports Inc., ARB No. 2025-0005, ALJ No. 2024-SOX00037, slip op. at 2 (ARB Jan. 22, 2025) (treating a filing submitted after a decision and

order was issued as a request for reconsideration); McCloskey v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co.,

ARB No. 2006-0033, ALJ No. 2005-SOX-00093, slip op. at 2 (ARB Mar. 26, 2008) (treating

the Complainant’s motion requesting that the Board vacate its Order of Remand as a

request for reconsideration); Bidwai v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cnty., ARB No. 20120072, ALJ No. 2011-LCA-00029, slip op. at 2 (ARB Oct. 17, 2012) (treating the

complainant’s motion to reinstate the complaint and recuse the Board’s Administrative

Appeals Judges and General Counsel as a request for reconsideration).

3

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

2 (ARB July 19, 2023).

4

5

Mot. for Clarification at 1.

3

for non-dispositive action or relief with the Board, the moving party must make a

good faith effort to confer with all other parties to ascertain whether they consent to

the action or relief sought. Additionally, the moving party must state in its motion

whether the other parties’ consent to the action or relief sought or, if no conference

occurred. The Board may summarily deny any subsequent motions that do not

comply with this requirement. 6 The Board may also summarily deny subsequently

filed motions that are, in substance, duplicative of the motions the Board denies

today. 7

5F

6F

Complainant’s Motion for Clarification is DENIED. 8

7F

6

Briefing Order at 5.

See Bidwai v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cnty., ARB No. 2012-0072, ALJ No.

2011-LCA-00029, slip op. at 2-3 (ARB Nov. 5, 2012) (recognizing the Board’s ability to

refuse to entertain duplicative motions for reconsideration and requiring a party to obtain

the Board’s permission prior to filing additional motions of any kind).

7

On February 14, 2025, two days after Complainant filed this Motion for

Clarification, Complainant filed a motion titled “Motion to Grant Appeal Access to ARB

Case No. 2024-0044 for Local 2145 Members Seeking a Refund for $130.72 for Improper

Dues Deduction.” This motion requests the Board permit other members of Local 2145 to

submit filings through the Board’s electronic filing system (EFS). This motion is DENIED.

On the same date, Deneen Harris, a member of Local 2145 and non-party to this litigation,

filed a motion titled “Motion to Reconsider ARB Final Decision/Motion to

Consolidate/Motion for Class Action Certificate/Motion to Intervene/Motion for

Enforcement.” This motion requests the Board to (i) reconsider its decision, (ii) certify a

class proceeding, and/or (iii) remand the case to ALJ Farley to permit him to consider

certifying a class proceeding. As already discussed, the limited circumstances warranting

reconsideration are not present here. Accordingly, Ms. Harris’ motion is DENIED.

Respondent and Complainant have also filed submitted additional filings as replies to

Complainant’s motion for clarification. One of these filings, however, is styled as

Complainant’s Motion to Deny the Respondent [sic] Reply to Complainant’s Motion to

Grant Appeal Access to Case No. 2024-0044 For Local for Local 2145 Members Seeking a

Refund for $130.72 for Improper Dues Deduction.” This motion is DENIED.

8

4

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

ANGELA W. THOMPSON

Administrative Appeals Judge

____________________________________

JONATHAN ROLFE

Administrative Appeals Judge