Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321206917/Stone-v-Instrumentation-Laboratory-Co-591-F-3d-239-4th-Cir-2009
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:30:51+00:00

Document:
Kirk et. al. v. Palmer et. al.
to the appropriate administrative body for further proceedings.
concentrate buying power in order to negotiate lower prices.
are a critical part of its distribution strategy.
[Stone]." Venkatraman v. REI Systems, Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 420 (4th Cir.
to perform additional investigation into ILCs internal controls, and such investigation revealed numerous weaknesses.
in Stones termination in March of 2006.
claims on behalf of the Secretary of Labor ("the Secretary").
named ILC managers are referred to herein collectively as "Appellees."
thereafter modified by the ARB on Stones motion.
once Stones complaint was filed in district court.
judgment on the merits" for purposes of collateral estoppel.
pursue relief in federal district court would be "wasteful."
(J.A. 169.) The district court did, however, "issue a mandamus to the [Department of Labor] to re-instate proceedings"
appeal to this Court, but that motion was ultimately denied.
complaint in district court divested the ARB of jurisdiction.
The instant appeal presents a question of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law that we review de novo.
United States v. Turner, 389 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2004).
345, 350 (4th Cir. 2004). Under the first and "cardinal canon"
"this first canon is also the last: judicial inquiry is complete." Id. at 254 (quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S.
349 (4th Cir. 2004). Courts will not, however, adopt a "literal"
the statutes obvious purpose or lead to an "absurd result."
County, 401 F.3d 274, 280 (4th Cir. 2005).
proceedings); Hanna v. WCI Cmtys., Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla.
effect, but suggesting that the result may be different after an ALJ conducts a hearing and issues a ruling).
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).
provided to . . .
employee . . . .
18 U.S.C. 1514A(b)(1) (emphasis added).
as well as the procedure for notifying the DOL of a complainants intent to file suit in federal court for lack of a "final"
provisions of the statute) for reasonableness.").
findings, which can thereafter be challenged before an ALJ.
[ALJ] will become the final order of the Secretary . . . ." Id.
to file such a [federal] complaint." 29 CFR 1980.114(b).
[ARB], depending on where the proceeding is pending." Id.
the filing of an administrative complaint. 18 U.S.C.
the procedure set forth in the regulations to exercise his statutory right to seek relief in district court.
on 1514A, as well as on a similar finding by an out of circuit district court in Allen v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., No. 054033 (E.D. La. Apr. 6, 2006) (unpublished).
relief is not circumscribed in any manner by the statute.
Appellees interpretation of the instant statute since such construction reads out of the statute the phrase "de novo review."
consider the issue "as if it had not been decided previously."
a level of deference that is "something less than preclusion."
effect to prior administrative fact finding).
n.2 (quoting United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229 (2001)).
estoppel is wise but whether it is intended by the legislature.").
interpret statutes to avoid absurd results.").
effect of the determinations of a particular tribunal.") (emphasis added).
. . . ." Id.
for doing so is laudable. See Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S.
supremacy and recognition of the fact that members of Congress typically vote based on a bills language).
expressly provides a complainant the right to de novo review.
for in the controlling statute.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.