![]() Protected activity occurred prior to effective date of STAA Because they were not raised as objections at the time of the hearing, the court refused to consider the Complainant's arguments that he did not have fair notice of the motion or that the Respondent waived reliance on the limitations period because it was not raised as an affirmative defense. The court found that "Because the STAA requires a complainant to file a whistleblower claim 'not later than 180 days after the alleged violation occurred,' the ALJ did not err when it granted Jack in the Box's motion." Slip op. 2, 2009) (unpublished), the Complainant argued that the ALJ incorrectly granted the Respondent's motion in limine denying recovery for any adverse actions that took place more than 180 days prior to the filing of the STAA complaint. MOTION IN LIMINE DENYING RECOVERY FOR ADVERSE ACTIONS THAT TOOK PLACE MORE THAN 180 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE STAA COMPLAINT The ARB affirmed the ALJ's ruling that this failure did not defeat the Complainant's right to a hearing because the Respondent had not been unduly prejudiced by the short delay between the filing deadline and when it actually received a copy of the objections/hearing request. 16, 2005), the Complainant failed to mail a copy of his objections to the OSHA determination and request for ALJ hearing to the Respondent as required by the STAA regulations. REQUEST FOR ALJ HEARING FAILURE TO SERVE OPPOSING PARTY 1998), a STAA anti-retaliation decision in which the panel spoke of a combination oral/written complaint as "filed." In so noting, the court cited by comparison Clean Harbors Environ. In footnote 4, the court noted that it was leaving for another day the question whether combined oral and written complaints, or alleged complaints of a wholly oral nature, allow invocation of the protections of § 215(a)(3). § 215(a)(3), protects written internal complaints, and found that it does. 9, 1999), the court considered whether the Fair Labor Standards Act anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. ORAL COMPLAINT - FLSA ANTI-RETALIATION ACTION Part 18, and not the Federal Rules of Evidence, are controlling in regard to whether evidence constitutes hearsay or falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. 29, 1999), the ARB observed that "n STAA cases, the Board often looks to the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges for guidance on procedural matters. REFERENCE TO PART 18 RULES OF PRACTICE IN STAA CASE 27, 1992) (Order Denying Motion to Reconsider), slip op. Roadway Express, Inc., 92-STA-1 (Sec'y Oct. Stay for bankruptcy proceedings or enforcement of Secretary's order Service of decision and other service and filing issues Motion for reconsideration/reopening of the record Nature of ALJ decision: Recommended or Final ![]() Responsibility to afford opposing party opportunity to respond to motion ![]() Powers and responsibilities of Administrative Law Judge Right of Assistant Secretary to file brief where he or she had earlier deferred to arbitration proceedingĮ. Right of complainant to continue despite Assistant Secretary's deferral to arbitration proceeding Complaint not to be treated as formal legal pleading Circumstances justifying equitable tolling STAA time limits directory not jurisdictional ![]() Effect of failure to object to Assistant Secretary's findings Timeliness of filing of request for hearing or complaint Filing of complaint or request for hearing, generally
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |