### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

No. 18-1800

M AR Y M AD I S O N

, Petitioner,

v.

U NI T E D S TAT E S D E PAR TM E NT O F L AB OR , A D MI N I STR

AT I V E R E VI E W B OAR D, Respondent.

Peti ti o n fo r R ev i ew o f a n Order o f the U ni ted S ta tes Depa rtment o f Lab o r

No . 2 0 1 6 -FDA -0 0 4

A RGUE D N OV E MB E R 28, 2 018

— D E C I D E D M A Y 24,2019

Befor e R OVN E R

, H AMI L T O N

, and B RE N NAN

, Circuit Judges

. R O VN E R , C ir cuit Judge. Followi ng her di s char ge fr om Ken c o Logi sti c s (“Kenco”), Mar y Madi son fi l ed a complaint wi th the Occupati onal S afety and Health Admin i str ati o n (“OS HA”) char gi ng that s he w as ter minated in r etali ati on for engagi ng in2 No. 18-1800

pr otected acti v i ty

. OS HA di smi ssed h er co mplaint, and in a subsequent de nov o pr oceedi ng conducted at Madi son’s

r equest, an admini str ati v e law judge (“ALJ”) enter ed a
summary d eci si on agai nst her

. Madi son asked the Depar tment of Labor ’s Admin is t r ati v e Rev i ew Boar d ( “ARB” or the “Boar d”) to r ev i ew the ALJ’s d eci si on, but the Boar d di smi ssed her appeal as unti m ely

. Madi son now see ks r ev i ew in thi s
c o u r t

. Fi nding no er r or in the Boar d ’s deci si on as to t he ti meliness of Madi son’s app e a l t o the Boar d, w e deny the peti ti on for r ev i ew

. I.
Kenco employ ed Madi son as a quali ty engi neer fr om May 13, 2013 u nti l August 9, 2013, when i t d i s c ha r g e d h er
. Kenco pr ov i d ed w ar ehousing ser v i c es t o M a r s, I n c

. , a g l ob a l m anufactur er of candy and other food pr oducts. Madi son alleges that he r d is c h ar ge w as the culminati on of a s er i es of adv er se
e mployment acti ons the company took agai n st h er in retali a ti on f or the f ood s afety c oncer n s she had rai sed wi th her super i or s. S hor tly a f t e r her ter minati on, Madi son fi led a c omplaint wi th OS HA u nder secti on 402 of the FDA Food S afety Moder ni zati on Act ( “ F S M A”), whi ch in r elev ant par t gi v es whi stleblow er pr otecti on to employ ees o f f ir m s “engaged in the manufactur e, pr ocessing, packing, tr anspor ti ng, di str ibuti on,
r ecepti on, holding, or i mpor tati on of fo o d

. ” 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 399d(a);

see al s o i d

. § 399d(b)(1) (author i z ing employ ee subj ect to

r etali a ti on for lawful whi stleblowing to fi le co m p l a in t wi th S ecr etar y of Labor ) ; S ecr etar y of Labor Or der No. 1 -2012 ( Jan. 18, 2012), 7 7 Fed. Reg. 3912-01, 2012 WL 194561 ( Jan. 25, 2 012)No. 18-1800 3 (delegati ng author i ty to r ecei v e a nd inv e sti gate such c omplaints to Assi stant S ecr etar y of L abor for Occupati onal S a fety and Health); 29 C.F

. R

. § 1 987.105(a) (pr ov i d in g that after inv esti gati on, Assi stant S ecr etar y of Labor wi l l enter wr i tten f in d ings as to whether ther e i s r easonable cause to beli ev e
r etali a ti on has occur r ed and, i f so, wi ll i ssue pr eli minar y or der gr anti n g r eli ef to complainant). In Febr uar y 2016, an OS HA inv esti gator di s mi ssed Madi son’s complaint. A s w as her r i ght, Madi son r equested a de nov o hear ing befor e an ALJ. See 29 C.F .R. § 1987.106(a). Kenco fi led a moti on asking the ALJ to enter a summary deci si on r esolv ing the case in i ts f av or
. After ini ti ally denyi ng the moti on, the ALJ gr anted Kenco’s moti on to reconsi der and enter ed a detai led summary deci si on in Kenco’s fav or
. S ep. App. 5 0–76. 1 In v i ew of the facts

as to whi ch ther e w as no di spute, th e A L J agr eed that Kenco had legi ti mate, non-di scr i minator y r easons for fi r ing Madi son and indeed w ould h av e di schar ged her r egar dless of whether she had engaged in acti v i ty pr otect by the FS MA. The A LJ i ssued that or der on Nov ember 22, 2017. S ep. App. 65–74. Madi son had 14 days fr om the date of the ALJ’s d eci si on to peti ti on for di s cr e t i onar y r ev i ew by the ARB of the ALJ’s deci si on agai nst her

. 29 C.F .R. § 1987.110(a). A noti ce of appeal

r i ghts s et f or th on the final pages of the ALJ’s deci si on expr essly a d m oni shed Madi son and h er counsel of the d eadline

1 Ci ta ti o ns t o “ S ep. App.” a re to the s epa ra te a ppendi x M a di so n h a s fi l ed i n suppo rt o f her peti ti o n fo r rev i ew, a n d c i t a t i o ns to “ A pp.” a re to the requi red a ppendi x a ppended to her o peni n g b r i e f. The do cuments i ncl uded i n the s e tw o a p pendi ces i nco rpo ra te the rel ev a nt po rti o ns o f the a dmi n i stra

ti v e reco rd.4 No. 18-1800
for such a peti ti on. S ep. App. 74. Fi ling such a peti ti on i s a pr econdi ti on to seeki ng j udi ci al r ev i ew of the S ecr etar y’s acti on. See id. §§ 1987.109(e), 1987.110(b). Thus, i f a ti mely peti ti on for

r ev i ew i s not fi led wi th the Boar d, the ALJ’s deci si on becomes the fin al deci si on of the S ecr etar y on the mer i ts of the case and i s not subj ect to j udi c ial r ev i ew
. 29 C.F .R. §§ 1987.109(e), 1987.110(b).
A par alegal speci ali s t a t t he D epar tment of L abor ’s Offi ce of Admini str a ti v e Law Judges mai led a copy of the ALJ’s Nov ember 22nd deci si o n t o Madi son’s counsel, Jor dan T

. Hoffman, but to H o ffm a n ’ s fo r m e r r ather than cur r ent a ddr ess. As of that date, Hoffman had not y et fi led a for mal change of addr ess noti ce wi th t h e ALJ’s offi ce—he w ould subsequently do s o in Januar y 2018—but ther e i s no di spute that the ALJ’s par alegal nonetheless w as in possessi on of hi s cur r ent a ddr ess. The mi s-addr essed env elope w as retur n ed to the ALJ’s offi ce
as undeli v er able, as w as a c o p y of the d eci si on that had b een mai led to Kenco i tsel f

. O n r etur n of the copy sent to a ttor n ey Hoffman, the par alegal r e-mai led another copy of the deci si on to hi s cor r ect addr ess on Dec e m b e r 1 , 2 017. S he also sent an emai l that same day to Kenco’s counsel, Jul ia P

. Ar genti er i, noti ng the r etur n of the copy m ai led to Kenco and soli ci ti ng the company’s cor r ect addr ess: I know the p ar ti es a l r e ady h av e an electr oni c deci

s ion on the abov e matter , but w e r ecei v ed th e h a r d copy back for Kenco Logi sti c s. C o uld y ou p lease pr ov i de me wi th thei r n ew a d

dr ess?No. 18-1800 5

I a lso r ecei v ed the har d copy b ack addr essed to Mr

. Hoffman (hi s old addr ess) so I sent another h ar d copy to hi s new addr ess. S ep. App. 33. Hoffman w as c opi ed on that emai l, but to an incor r ect emai l a d d r ess, so h e di d not recei v e i t. H ow ev er , Kenco’s counsel Ar genti er i p r omptly responded to the p ar a legal’s emai l wi th a cor r ectly-addr essed copy to Hoffman. Sep. App. 32. As that r esponse in cluded the hi stor y , a r ev i ew of the emai l w ould h a v e di sclosed the par alegal’s inqui r y and her

r efer en c e t o a deci s i on hav ing been render ed in the case. W e note, h ow ev er

, that the par al e g a l’s r epr esentati on that the par ti es “ alr ea d y h av e” an electr oni c c opy of the deci si on appear s to hav e been incor r ect. Madi son h ad not consented to electr oni c ser v i ce of the ALJ’s or der s, 2 and the r ecor d d oes not other wi se indi cate that Madi son an d h e r counsel had in fact

r ecei v ed electr oni c copi es of the deci si on. Hoffman h as r epr esented t ha t he di d not see thi s emai l exchange unti l w eeks later , after he had alr eady f il e d Madi

son ’ s p eti ti on for r ev i ew wi th the Boar d. Why he di d n ot see the emai lsooner has not been explained to us. Hoffman’s offi ce r ecei v ed the s econd, cor r ectly-addr essed copy of the ALJ’s or der on December 6 (the 14th d ay following the ALJ’s Nov ember 22nd or der ), and he r epr esents t ha t he fi r st saw i t on December 7. B y that ti me, of cour se, the per i od

2 M o reo v er, a pri o r o rder o f t h e A L J ha d no ted tha t nei ther pa rty ha d requested or recei v ed permi ssi o n to fi l e do cuments el ec tro ni ca l l y or v i a fa csi mi l e, a nd the A LJ ha d thus a dmo ni shed the pa rti es tha t they sho ul d fi l e
a l l future co rrespo ndence wi th the Offi ce o f A dmi ni stra ti v e La w Judges in wri t i ng. S ep. A pp. 8 9

.6 No. 18-1800
for seeki ng r ev i ew by the B oar d had expi r ed. Madi son fi led her peti ti on for rev i ew wi th the Boar d ten d a ys l ater , on D ecember 17, 2 0 1 7

. P r ior to fi ling the p eti ti on, Hoffman d i d not fi le a mot ion askin g for an extensi on of ti me in whi ch to do so, nor (so far as the r ecor d r ev eals), d i d h e m a k e a ny other effor t to contact the Boar d t o a d v i s e them that he h ad n ot r ecei v ed a copy of the ALJ’s or der unti l December6. On r ecei pt of the p e t it io n for r ev i ew , the Boar d i ssued an
or der d i r ecti ng Madi son to show cause why the p e t it ion should not be di smi ssed as untim e l y
. App. 14. The Boar d’s

or der ack n o wledged that the 14-day appeals p er i od i s not j ur i sdi cti onal and w as subj ect to equi table modi fi cati on; the

or der also r efer r ed to the four pr inci pal si tuati ons in whi ch equ i t able modi fi c ati on of the ti me li mi t mi ght be w ar r anted. App. 15. Madi son fi led a r esponse to the or der to show cause in whi ch she ar gue d t h a t t he or i gi n al ser v i ce of the ALJ’s or der

w as defecti v e because i t w as sent to her counsel at an incor r ect addr ess, and that her appeal should b e deemed ti mely because i t w as fi led wi thin 14 days of her counsel’s r e c e ip t of the second, cor r ectly-addr essed mail in g of the ALJ’s or d er
. Sep. A p p

. 29–30. Madi son attached the emai l cor r espondence betw een the par alegal and Kenco’s counsel indi cating that the fi r st m ai ling to Hoffman had been r etur ned as undeliv er able. S he noted that the ALJ’s offi ce w as in possessi on of Hoffman’s

cur rent mai lin g addr ess. The r esponse a lso indi cated that Madi son her self h ad been out of town for an extended per i od when the copi es of the ALJ’s or der w er e mai led such that s he her s elf w as unawar e of the ALJ’s deci s i on. S ep. App. 29–30.No. 18-1800 7
On r ev i ew of Madi son’s r esponse to the or der t o show

cause (and Kenco’s own response), the ARB di smi ssed her appeal as unti mely

. App. 7–10. The B oar d w a s not conv inced that Madi son had demonstr ated the p r esence of extr aor dinar y ci r cumstances that w ar r anted exer c i se o f th e B o a r d ’s di scr eti on to equi tably toll the 14-day deadline f or her a p peal. Extr aor di

nar y ci rcumstances, the Boar d not e d , a r e typi c ally those in
w h ic h a ti mely fi ling w ould not h a v e occur r ed ev en in t he

exe r c i s e of due di li gence. App. 9. Although the Boar d acknowledged that Madi son’s counsel h ad not r ecei v ed the m a il e d copy of the ALJ’s deci si on unti l December 6 , i t poi nted out that Hoffman had noti ce by w ay of the December 1 emai l exchange that the ALJ had render ed a deci si on. At that poi nt, fi v e d a ys
r emained of the 14 follow in g t he ALJ’s Nov ember 2 2nd deci si on, y et Hoffman pur sued nei ther of the tw o o p ti ons
av ai lable to hi m at that p o in t i n ti me: fi ling a peti ti on for

r ev i ew , or mov ing for an extensi on of t im e in whi ch to do so. App. 9. Instead, he uni later ally deci ded, wi thout consulting the Boar d, t ha t (1) Madi son w as enti tled to toll the due date for fi ling because the or i gi nal deci si on w as sent to the wr ong addr ess, a nd (2) t ha t h e had four teen days fr om the date he r ecei v ed the deci

si on, r ather than four teen days fr om the d a te the A LJ i ssued i t, to fi le the peti ti on. Counsel w a s incor r ect on both counts. Had Madi son’s c ounsel contacted the Boar d and explai ned the re a s ons for

r equi r ing an enlar gement of ti me, i t i s l i kely that the Boar d w ould hav e g r a n ted that r equest, but he8 No. 18-1800
fai led to ask for such a n enlar gem e n t a nd ther eby has fai led to establi sh due di li gence. App. 9 ( footnote omi tted). Although these we r e H o ffm a n ’s acts and omi s si ons rather than Madi son’s, the B oar d noted that attor ney er r or or dinar i ly does not a mount to an extr aor dinar y
c i r cu m s t an c e wa r r anti ng equi table r eli ef, as c li ents ar e a c c o u n t

able for the acts and omi ssi ons of thei r lawy er s. App. 9. Madi son asked the Boar d to r econsi der the di smi ssal of her

a p peal. S ep. App. 13–16. S h e noted fi r st that althoug h he r attor n e y w as copi ed on the December 1 emai l exchange betw een the A LJ ’ s p a r a l e gal and Kenco’s counsel, Hoffman di d not actually hav e knowled ge of the ALJ’s deci si on as of that date. S ep. App. 13–14. S he e m p h a sized that the December 1 emai l exchange nei th e r in c l u d e d a n electr oni c copy of the ALJ’s deci si on nor di scussed the ALJ’s di sposi ti on of the case. Thus, not unti l Hoffman r ecei v ed the (second) mai led copy of the deci si on on December 6 a nd r ev i ewed i t on December 7 could he h a v e known pr eci sely what the ALJ deci ded. By that ti me, the 14-day window in whi ch to appeal the ALJ’s N ov ember 22nd r uling, as w ell as the ti me in whi ch to r equest a n extensi on of ti me, h a d e x p i r ed. “Hav in g recei v ed the documents after the expi r ati on ought to be an excepti onal ci r cumstance to quali fy for equi table tolli n g and i f not that at least a w ai v er of the i ni ti al 14 day per i od,” she ar gued. S ep. App. 15. The Boar d deni ed r e consi d er ati on. App. 1–3. Th e Boar d exp l ained that i ts r efusal to gr ant Madi son the benefi t of equi table tolli ng w as pr emi sed n o t on the noti on that Madi

son’s counsel had actually r ead the ALJ’s deci si on on December 1 , when he w a s copi ed on the emai l exchange betw een theNo. 18-1800 9 ALJ’s par alegal and Kenco’s c ounsel, but r ather on the noti on that Hoffman w as on noti ce as of that d ate that the ALJ had

r ender ed a deci si on. Hav ing not i ce that the Admini str ati v e Law Judge had i ssued “ the decision, ” an attor ney , exer ci sing the necessar y d ue di li gence and knowi ng of the 14- day deadline for fi ling a peti ti on for r e v iew , w ould not si mply hav e w ai ted ar ound hopi n g f o r t he d e ci si on to be deli v er ed in ti me f or the fi ling o f a ti mely peti ti on. I n s tead, h e w ould h av e contacted the Judge and r equested a c opy of the d e c is i on. Madi son’s counsel fai led to do so, and thus, fai led to act wi th due di li gence. App. 2 (emphasi s in or i gi nal). The Boar d added that Madi son had f a i l e d to addr ess an alter nati v e gr ound for i ts deci si on (w h i ch had been p r essed by Kenco and acknowledged in the Boar d’s d i smi ssal deci si on)—namely , that Madi son had fai led to fi le h er peti ti on for rev ie w wi thi n 14 days of the date on whi ch the ALJ’s cler k had mai led a second copy of the deci si on to Hoffman. App. 2.
II. Under the Admini str ati v e Pr ocedur e Act (“AP A”), w e wi ll sustain t h e Boar d’s deci si on s o long as i t i s not “arbi tr ar y , capr i ci ous, a n abuse of di scr eti on, or other wis e n ot in accor
dance wi th law

.” 5 U.S .C. § 706(2)(A). The deci si on to di smi ss Madi son’s intr a-agency a p p e a l i s one that w e wi ll sustain s o long as i t i s not a rbi tr ar y a nd capr i ci ous. See Sparre v
. U.S. Dep’t

o f Labor , — F .3d

— , 2019 WL 2064060, at *2 (7th Ci r
. Ma y 1 0 , 2019). The scope of our r ev i ew in thi s r egar d i s nar r ow , and w e10 No. 18-1800

must not substi tute our j udgment f or that of the agency

. F

. C.C.

v
. Fox T elevision Stations, Inc. , 556 U.S

. 502, 513, 129 S

. Ct. 1800, 1810 ( 2009); Motor V

e hicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v
. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S

. 29, 43, 103 S

. Ct. 2 856, 2866 (1983); Or chard Hill Bldg. Co. v
. U

. S

. Army Corps of E ng’rs , 893 F .3d 1017, 1 024 (7th Ci r
. 2018). The a gency’s obli gati on i s to exami ne the r elev a nt ev i dence and ar ti culate a sati sfactor y r ati onale for i ts acti on that dr aws a r ati onal connecti on betw een the u nder

lyi ng facts and the outcome. Motor V ehicle Mfrs. Ass’n , 463 U.S

. at 43, 103 S . Ct. at 2866.
As the Boar d r ecogni zed and the gov er nment ag r ees, the 14-day ti me li m i t on fi ling a peti ti on f or r ev i ew wi th the Boar d i s not jur i sdi cti onal and consequently i s s u bj e ct to equi table tolli ng. See Sparre, 2019 WL 2064060, at *3; D OL Br

. 16. Whether

or not to gr ant a li ti gant the benefi t of equi table tolli ng r equi r es
an agency to w ei gh intangible f actor s speci fi c to the indi v i dual

c a s e , Joh nson v
. M ukasey, 546 F .3d 4 0 3, 405 (7th Ci r
. 2008), abr ogated on other g rounds by Kucana v
. Holder, 558 U.S

. 2 33, 237, 130 S

. Ct. 827, 831 (2010), and in accor dance wi th the ter ms of the AP A, w e ther efor e r e v ie w the B oar d’s deci si on to d eny Madi son the benefi t of equi table tolli ng for abuse of d i s cr eti on. Sparre, 2019 WL 2064060, at *2; Johnson v
. Gonzales , 478 F .3d 795, 799 (7th Ci r
. 2007). As r elev a nt her e, equi table tolli ng “ pauses the running of,

or ‘tolls’ a statute of li mi tati ons when a li ti gant has pur sued hi s
r i gh t s d i l i g e ntly but some extr aor d inar y ci r cu m s t a n c e p r e v e n t s hi m fr om br ingi ng a ti mely acti on.” Lozano v
. Montoya Alvarez , 527 U.S

. 1, 1 0 , 134 S. C t

. 1224, 1231–32 (2014); see Sparre, 2019 WL 2064060, a t *3. It i s the bur den of the li ti gant who inv okesNo. 18-1800 11 equi table tolli ng to establi sh each of th e s e tw o elements: di li gence in the pur sui t of her r i ghts and the exi s tence o f an extr aor dinar y ci r cu mstance that nonetheless stood in the w ay of her maki ng a ti mely fi ling. Menominee Indian T ribe of W is. v

. United States , 136 S

. Ct. 750, 755 (2016) ( ci ti ng Holland v
. Florida , 560 U.S

. 631, 649, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2 562 (2010). Wher e equi table tolli ng appli es, i t appli es only so long as the p e t it i oner w as d i l i gently pur suing hi s r i ghts and extr aor din ar y ci r cumstan c e s pr ev ented hi m fr om maki ng a ti mely fi ling; i t i s that amount of ti me whi ch i s not counted tow ar d the relev a n t t i me li mi t. Gladney v
. Pollard, 7 99 F .3d 889, 895 (7th Ci r
. 2 0 15). Gi v en the compelling sh o w ing that i s r equi r ed to successfully inv oke equi table tolli ng and to show t hat an agency abused i ts di scr eti on, i t wi l l b e the r ar e case in whi ch w e w i ll fin d that an agency’s r e fu s al to equi tably toll a ti me li m i t w as out of bounds. Johnson v
. Gonzales , 478 F .3d at 799. Thi s i s not one o f those cases.
W e need not d eci de whether the agency ’ s m istake in d ir e cting the ini ti al mai ling of the ALJ’s d eci si on to counsel’s for mer addr ess amounts to an e x t r aor dinar y ci r cumstance whi ch s tood in the path of Madi son’s pur sui t of her r i ghts. The

r es p o nsi b i li ty for that er r or ar guably lay wi th Hoffman, who had not (y et) fi led a for mal change of addr ess n oti ce wi th the ALJ’s offi ce. At the same ti me, ther e i s no di spute that the ALJ’s par alegal w as aw ar e of Hoffman’s new add r e s s and indeed sent the second c opy of the A L J ’ s deci s i on to that addr ess
w i thout hav in g to be asked to do so, once the or i gi n al co p y
w as r e t u r n ed as u ndeli v er able. W e may ther efor e gi v e Madi

son the b enefi t of the doubt on thi s poi nt and a s sume, so l ely for the sake of ar gument, that the r esponsib il it y for the er r or12 No. 18-1800 belonged to the ALJ’s offi ce, and that the mi sdi r ected mai ling pr ev ented Madi son fr om fi ling an appeal. M a d is on had not consented to electr oni c ser v i ce of the ALJ’s or der s, so she and her counsel w er e depending on ser v i ce by mai l to appr i se her counsel of the ALJ’s deci si on. Thus, when the fi r st copy of the ALJ’s deci si on w as mai led to the wr ong addr ess, Hoffman w as left in the dar k a s to the fact that th e A L J h a d r u led on the

mer i ts of the case and the clock w as ti cking on hi s cli ent’s r i ght to appeal. But ev en wi th the benefi t of thi s gener ous assumpti on, Madi son cannot show that the Boar d abused i ts di scr eti on in r efusing to equi tably toll the statutor y appeals per i od long

e n o u g h to d eem her a ppeal ti mely

. Subsequent ev ents r emov ed any obstacle that a r g u ably may hav e pr ev ented her fr om fi lin g a ti mely appeal.
As of December 1, the ci r cumstances changed mater i al l y , and not j ust because the ALJ’s par alegal on that date di r ected

a second copy of the ALJ’s decis io n to the c or r ect mai ling addr ess for Hoffman. On that s ame day , the par alegal sent an emai l to counsel for both par ti es in wh i ch she noted, among other thi ngs, that the copi es of the deci si on sent to both Kenco and Hoffman h a d been r etur ne d a n d that she had mai led another c opy of the deci si on to Hoffman’s cur rent addr ess. The par alegal u sed an in cor r ect emai l a ddr ess for Hoffman on that emai l, b ut i n r eplyi ng to the par alegal (wi th h i stor y), Kenco’s counsel, Ar genti er i, cor r ected that er ror s o t ha t Hoffman

w ould see b oth the par alegal’s emai l and Ar genti er i’ s reply

. Ther e i s n o d i s pute that Hoffman r ecei v ed Ar genti er i ’s emai l; and b y v i r tue of that electr oni c cor r espondence, Hoffman w as
on noti ce th e r e h ad been a deci si on by the ALJ, wi th ti me enough left to take appr opr i ate a c t io n in the exer ci se ofNo. 18-1800 13
di li gence to pr eser v e Madi son’s appellate r i ghts. T rue, the emai l exchange di d not r ev eal what the ALJ had r uled upon or how t h e A LJ had r uled. But Hoffman w as nonetheless on noti ce that a d eci si on had been i ssued, and b y vi r tue of Kenco’s pending m oti on to r econsi der the deni al of i ts r equest for a
summary d eci si on, i t w as for eseeable to Hoffman that the ALJ mi ght hav e gr a n ted that moti on. As t h e B o ar d poi nted out, wi th the b enefi t of that noti ce, Hoffman had tw o opti ons open to hi m wi thi n the fi v e days r emaining in the 14-day appeals window

. He could hav e ( a ) r equested that the par alegal s end hi m another copy of the ALJ’s deci si on by emai l or fax (as the

r ecor d r eflects h e h ad done in the past, see S ep. App. 85–86) and pr epar ed a ti mely peti ti on for r ev i ew , or (b) i mmedi ately fi led a moti on to extend the 14-day ti m e for lodgi n g an appeal t o the Boar d. In shor t, the noti ce pr ov i ded by th e e m a il exchange remov e d the obstacle that had p r ev ented Madi son fr om di li gently pur suing her appellate r i ghts.
As w e hav e noted, Hoffman r epr esent s t h a t he di d not actually see the December 1 emai l exchange unti l weeks later , aft er he h ad alr eady r ecei v ed a copy of the ALJ’s deci si on in the mai l and fi led the (unti mely) peti ti on f or r ev i ew on Madi

son’s behalf. It i s not app a r e nt why he di d not see the emai l

sooner ; b ut in any ev ent, thi s w as a matter th a t w a s wi thi n Hoffman’s co n t rol. T

oday , cour ts and agenci es routi nely communi cate w i th counsel electr on ically , a nd attor neys l i k e wi se communi cate wi th one another v i a emai l. E v en wh e r e, as her e, a par ty has not consented to electr oni c se r v ic e of agency or der s, c ounsel can for esee that ther e m a y b e electr oni c
cor respondence fr om both the agency and opposi ng counsel in the cour se of the c ase, and he can be expected to check (or hav e14 No. 18-1800

someone in hi s offi ce moni tor ) hi s emai l on a r e gular b asi s to keep abr east of dev elopments in li ti gati on. The r ecor d r eflects that Hoffman h ad pr ev i ously exchanged emai ls wi th the ALJ’s par alegal r egar ding a pr i or or der i ssued in the p r oceedi ng. S ep. App. 8 5–86. Had he, or someone in hi s offi c e, checked hi s emai l and looked at t h e D e c ember 1 exchange b etw een the par alegal and Kenco’s counsel, Hoffman w ould hav e known t h a t ther e w as a n eed to act. It w as ther efor e enti r ely r easo n abl e fo r the Boar d to r ely on December 1 as a p oi nt a t whi ch due di li gence w ould hav e r equ i r e d H offman to take affi r mati v e acti on to obtai n a copy of the ALJ’s or der and to pr eser v e hi s c l i ent’s appellate r i ghts. And y et H offman took no i m medi

ate a cti on to lodge an appeal or r equest an extensi on of ti me. See Y uan Gao v
. Mukasey, 519 F .3d 376, 378 (7th Ci r
. 20 0 8 ) (“a li ti gant who lear ns , or had he been di li gent w ould hav e lear ned, all the facts he w ould need in or der to be abl e t o fi le hi s clai m whi le ti me r emain ed in the li mi tati ons per i od, m ust fi le i t before the per i od ends”) (emphasi s in or i gi nal) (collecting cases).
Ev en i f w e wer e to i gnor e the December 1 emai l exchange altogether

, the r ecor d sti ll w ould not suppor t the n o t io n t hat Hoffman a c t ed wi th appr opr i ate di li gence. As w e hav e assumed a r

guendo , in v i ew of the mi s-addr essed fi r st mai l ing, Madi son and Hoffman w e r e p r ev ented fr om taki ng acti on in pur sui t of her appellate r i ghts until such ti me as the par alegal sent a s econd c opy of the ALJ’s deci si on to Hoffman’s cur r ent addr ess. Madi son w as ar guably enti tled to equi table tolli n g of the 14-day appeals per i od for that length of ti m e. But, once the second copy w as mai led t o Hoffman’s cor r ect addr ess, ther e
w as no longer a n obstacle pr ev enti ng Hoffma n a n d Madi sonNo. 18-1800 15
fr om pur suing h er appellate r i ghts. S he could be expected to fi le an appeal (or a r equest for extensi on of ti me) wi thin t he ensuing 14 days, j ust as s he w ould hav e been had the deci si on been mai led to the cor r ect addr ess in the fi r st instance. Agai n , she di d not. Hoffman’s offi c e recei v ed the second mai led copy
on December 6 and he saw i t on December 7. At that poi nt, he had another ei ght days to take acti on under the tolled appeals per i od begi nning on December 1. B ut he took n o acti on dur ing that ti me, and w ai ted unti l December 17, a full ten days later , to fi le a not ic e o f a p peal. As the Boar d suggested, i t appear s f r om Madi son’s r esponse to the r ule to show cause t h a t Hoffman w as oper ati ng on the assumpti on that he had 14 d a ys to fi le an appeal commencing on the date he received the mai led copy of the ALJ’s deci si on to appeal, r ather than the d a t e t he copy w as mailed

. That w as both a mi sunder standing of appli cable r ules and contr ar y to the noti ce of appeal r i ghts included in the ALJ’s deci si on; and the r esponsi bi li ty fo r that er r or li es wi th Hoffman (and by extensi on, Madi son) rather than the Depar tment of Labor

. See Sparre, 2019 WL 2064060, at *3.
In shor t, whi le Madi son ar gu ab l y m a y h a v e been pr ev ented fr om doi ng anythi ng in pur sui t of her appellate r i ghts p r i or to December 1, the second mai l ing on that date and t he emai l

cor respondence on the same day r emov ed the obstacle. After that poi nt, Madi son’s counsel could be expected in the exer c i se of d ue di li gence to take acti on mor e qui ckly than he di d. Ti mely r ev i ew of the emai l w ould hav e p er mi tted H offman to obtai n qui ck access to the ALJ ’ s o r d e r and to pur sue a ti mely appeal. Ev en gr anti ng Madi son the benefi t of li mi ted equi table tolli ng fr om Nov em ber 22 to December 1, her counsel sti ll fai led to act wi th appr opr i ate di spatch. Hi s 10-day d e l ay in16 No. 18-1800
fi ling the p e ti ti on f or r ev i ew after he had recei v ed and rev ie w e d the m ai led copy of the ALJ’s deci si on on December 6 i s inconsi stent wi th due di li gence. III. The Boar d di d not abuse i ts di scr eti on in d eclining to equi tably toll the appeals deadline so a s to deem Madi son’s belated appeal ti mely

, gi v en the lack of due di li gence on the par t of h er counsel. The deci si on to d is m iss her appeal as unti mely w as ther efor e not arbi tr a r y and cap r i c i o u s. W e DENY the p e t it i on for r ev i ew and AFFIRM the Boar d’s di smi ssal of her intr a-agency appeal as unti mely

.