29 C.F.R. § 1979.110

Decision and orders of the Administrative Review Board

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any party desiring to seek review, including judicial review, of a decision of the administrative law judge, or a named person alleging that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith who seeks an award of attorney's fees, must file a written petition for review with the Administrative Review Board (“the Board”). The decision of the Administrative Law Judge shall become the final order of the Secretary unless, pursuant to this section, a petition for review is timely filed with the Board. The petition for review must specifically identify the findings, conclusions, or orders to which exception is taken. Any exception not specifically urged ordinarily shall be deemed to have been waived by the parties. To be effective, a petition must be filed within ten business days of the date of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic transmittal will be considered to be the date of filing; if the petition is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the petition is considered filed upon receipt. The petition must be served on all parties and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge at the time it is filed with the Board. Copies of the petition for review and all briefs must be served on the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.

(b) If a timely petition for review is filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the decision of the administrative law judge shall become the final order of the Secretary unless the Board, within 30 days of the filing of the petition, issues an order notifying the parties that the case has been accepted for review. If a case is accepted for review, the decision of the administrative law judge shall be inoperative unless and until the Board issues an order adopting the decision, except that a preliminary order of reinstatement shall be effective while review is conducted by the Board. The Board will specify the terms under which any briefs are to be filed. The Board will review the factual determinations of the administrative law judge under the substantial evidence standard.

(c) The decision of the Board shall be issued within 120 days of the conclusion of the hearing, which shall be deemed to be the conclusion of all proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge—i.e., 10 business days after the date of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge unless a motion for reconsideration has been filed with the Administrative Law Judge in the interim. The decision will be served upon all parties and the Chief Administrative Law Judge. The decision will also be served on the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, even if the Assistant Secretary is not a party.

(d) If the ARB concludes that the party charged has violated the law, the ARB shall order the party charged to take appropriate affirmative action to abate the violation, including, where appropriate, reinstatement of the complainant to that person's former position, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions, and privileges of that employment, and compensatory damages. At the request of the complainant, the Board shall assess against the named person all costs and expenses (including attorney and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred. The ARB's order is subject to discretionary review by the Secretary as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).

(e) If the ARB concludes that the party charged has not violated the law, the ARB shall issue an order denying the complaint. If, upon the request of the named person, the Board determines that a complaint was frivolous or was brought in bad faith, the Board may award to the named person reasonable attorney fees, not exceeding $1,000. An order under this section is subject to discretionary review by the Secretary as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).

[68 FR 14107, Mar. 21, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 30620, May 20, 2020; 86 FR 1789, Jan. 11, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2023 · leading case: Vieques Air Link, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 437 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vieques Air Link, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 437 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2006). “By Department rule, “[a]ny party desiring to seek review, including judicial review, of a decision of the administrative law judge .”

Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 522 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2008). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110 (a). At its discretion, the Administrative Review Board may accept a case for review and issue a superseding final order; otherwise, the ALJ’s ruling becomes the final order of the Secretary of Labor.”

Bombardier, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 145 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 42121 (b)(3)A); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110 (d)-(e). C. Judicial Review in a United States Court of Appeals Only then does AIR21’s statutory scheme contemplate judicial review.”

Herchak v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 125 F. App'x 102 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 9× “29 C.F.R. § 1979.110 (a). The fifteenth day from the ALJ’s decision was February 11, 2003.”

Rollins v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 279 F. App'x 730 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Rollins argued that the ALJ’s decision was itself nullified, leaving the -2- reinstatement order standing, when the DOL’s Administrative Review Board heard his appeal under 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110 (b), which states that once an appeal is accepted, “the decision of the [ALJ] shall…”

Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 237 P.3d 565 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110 (a). At its discretion, the Administrative Review Board may accept a case for review and issue a superseding final order; otherwise, the ALJ's ruling becomes the final order of the Secretary of Labor.”

Karl Seuring v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “Seuring’s original petition before the ARB failed to comply with 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110 (a), which requires that “[t]he petition for review must specifically identify the findings, conclusions, or orders to which exception is taken.”

Darren Kossen v. Asian Pac. Airlines (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “In addition, we cannot examine whether the ARB abused its 2 discretion in denying Kossen’s motions to reconsider and reopen the record because Kossen’s petition does not challenge these orders. See 49 U.S.C. § 42121 (b)(4)(A); Fed.”

Robert Kreb v. Usdol (9th Cir. 2022). “He also failed to establish that a pilot with his training and experience would have agreed that accepting the flight assignment would have posed a safety risk.”

Murry v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110 (a). At its discretion, the Administrative 3730 MURRAY v.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.