Opinion ID: 854301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Loss of Status as an Officer

Text: Bechtel contends that the ALJ incorrectly found that his loss of status as an officer of CTI did not constitute a prohibited act within the meaning of the Act. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.102(a) (setting out prohibited acts). As he concedes, however, he did not raise this issue before the ARB, see Reply Br. 19, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Formella v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 628 F.3d 381, 390 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[I]n an adversarial setting it is reasonable to expect the parties to raise and develop any issues that they want the ALJ and the ARB to address, on pain of 10 forfeiting any issues that they do not mention.” (citing Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 109–10 (2000)); see also United States v. Dupree, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 309983, at  (2d Cir. Jan. 28, 2013) (“[W]e will not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal.”).