Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1810483/Department-of-Labor-07-089
Timestamp: 2019-11-21 06:25:55
Document Index: 547051062

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 351', 'arts 4', '§ 8', '§ 4', '§ 4', 'art 8']

Department of Labor: 07 089 | Separation Of Powers | Lawsuit
Department of Labor: 07 089
saveSave Department of Labor: 07 089 For Later
United States v. Owen Odman, 4th Cir. (2011)
SMITH v. MCDONOUGH - Document No. 6
"DUE DILIGENCE RE-DEFINED BY FIFTH CIRCUIT"
Felipe Perez Lopez, A208 055 200 (BIA Nov. 8, 2016)
United States v. Mack Brooks, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Gonzales, 10th Cir. (2008)
Hodge v. American Home, 25 F.3d 1037, 1st Cir. (1994)
Bretschneider v. Brown, 99 F.3d 1149, 10th Cir. (1996)
Wade v. United States, 10th Cir. (2009)
ANDREW AIKEN and ARB CASE NO. 07-089
all other Similarly Affected Employees
of ITS Medical Systems on U.S. Army
Reserve Command Contract No. DATE: July 27, 2007
DAKF11-01-C-0005 in Fort McCoy,
Wisconsin, Fort Gordon, Georgia,
and Fort Dix, New Jersey.
John V. Berry, Esq.; Sara C. Vins, Esq., Law Firm of John Berry, PLLC,
For the Respondent Administrator, Wage and Hour Division:
Joan Brenner, Esq.; William C. Lesser, Esq.; Steven J. Mandel, Esq.; Jonathan L.
Snare, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This case before the Administrative Review Board (Board) arises under the McNamara-
Hara Service Contract Act (SCA), as amended.1
The Petitioners, Andrew Aiken and all other similarly affected employees of ITS Medical
Systems on U.S. Army Reserve Command Contract No. DAKF11-01-C-0005 in Fort McCoy,
41 U.S.C.A. § 351 et seq. (West 2007) and its implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Parts 4
and 8 (2007).
Wisconsin; Fort Gordon, Georgia; and Fort Dix, New Jersey, (Petitioners), filed this amended
appeal requesting Judgment on the Merits on June 12, 2007.
This appeal stems from a previous appeal, ARB No. 07-017, involving the same parties.
The Board dismissed 07-017 on April 23, 2007, without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
The Board has jurisdiction under 29 C.F.R. § 8.1(b) to hear final decisions by the
Administrator, authorized representative, or administrative law judge under 29 C.F.R. § 4.56. In
07-017, the Petitioners argued that a letter that a Regional Specialist sent to them constituted a
final decision from the Administrator. The Administrator disagreed and moved to dismiss the
case for lack of jurisdiction. We agreed with the Administrator and dismissed the appeal.
In the Order dismissing 07-017, we specifically noted that the Administrator’ s Motion to
Dismiss indicated that “ [t]he Administrator will treat the Petition as a request for a final ruling
and will issue a final decision in accordance with the SCA and the conformance regulations.”
We stated that pursuant to 29 C.F.R.§ 4.56(a), “ [t]he Administrator will render a decision within
30 days of the receipt of the request or will notify the requesting party in writing within 30 days
of the receipt that additional time is necessary.” Thus, in accordance with this regulation, we
indicated that the Administrator was required to either issue a decision within 30 days of the
April 23 dismissal or notify the Petitioners, in writing, that additional time was necessary.
There was some confusion thirty days later. On May 24, 2007, the Petitioners attempted
to contact the Administrator to get the final decision. The Petitioners were unsuccessful in
contacting the Administrator through voice or written inquiries. On June 1st, the Petitioners filed
this appeal with the Board for Judgment on the Merits claiming that the Administrator had failed
to issue a final decision within the times prescribed by the regulations and the Board’ s April 23,
2007 dismissal. On June 2, 2007, Petitioner Aiken received a letter dated May 21, 2007, from
the Administrator requesting more time. In light of this letter, on June 12, 2007, the Petitioners
amended their Motion for Judgment on the Merits to reflect the update in correspondence.
On June 29, 2007, the Board issued an Order granting the Administrator fourteen days to
respond to the Petitioners’appeal for Judgment on the Merits. On July 13, 2007, the
Administrator responded to the Board’ s Order, and on that same day, issued a final decision in
Since the Administrator has issued a final decision and informed the Petitioners of their
appeal rights pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 8, we dismiss the Petitioners’appeal for Judgment on the
Merits without prejudice. As indicated in the Administrator’ s final decision, the Petitioners are
free to appeal the Administrator’s July 13, 2007 final decision, should they choose to do so.
See Administrator’
s Motion to Dismiss at 11 (ARB No. 07-017).
Accordingly, we DISMISS the Petitioners’appeal requesting Judgment on the Merits
Documents Similar To Department of Labor: 07 089
United States v. Denley Earl Walters, 89 F.3d 831, 4th Cir. (1996)
Restoney Robinson v. Paul B. Calhoun Walter T. Johnson Henry E. Frye Sam Boyd Kaye Byrd, 838 F.2d 467, 4th Cir. (1988)
United States v. Rodgers, 10th Cir. (1999)
United States v. Eugene Allen Davis, 13 F.3d 407, 10th Cir. (1993)
United States v. Charles Leo Farley, 238 F.2d 575, 2d Cir. (1956)
Joseph W. Littman v. Bache & Co., 246 F.2d 490, 2d Cir. (1957)
James C. Wagner v. Nicholas J. Hun, Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Corrections, and Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General of West Virginia, 60 F.3d 827, 4th Cir. (1995)
Martinez v. RP
Report on Concept of State and Government
api-252490891
Gravitte v. NC Div of Motor, 4th Cir. (2002)
Navy Lark Series 11 Booklet
Answer the Following Questions About Uk
Restorative Justice Policing
5_6098279872948338694
Ingenix FTC Order FCRA
Former Freedom High School Student Sentenced to Eight Years in Prison for Robbery _ LoudounTimes