Conclusion
Of the "errors" appealed by American Truss, one was never made (the 0.03 hours in 1999), three were inapposite (the errors relating to particular weeks in 2000), and the remaining 14 were waived (those relating to vacation and holiday hours). Therefore, we
[Page 7]
AFFIRM the ALJ's decision, and ORDER that American Truss pay the employee $13,966.94 in back wages.
SO ORDERED.
A. LOUISE OLIVER
Administrative Appeals Judge
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 American Truss sought review of the ALJ's "fail[ure] to take into account multiple errors in [WHD]'s calculations of [the employee's] backpay award." Petition at 3. In addition, American Truss sought "to reiterate all arguments made at the hearing and in the Respondent's Closing Statement" and to "request[] that the Board consider these issues on appeal as well." Petition at 3. In accepting the Petition, however, the Board agreed to review only "[w]hether the ALJ properly calculated [the] backpay award." Notice of Intent to Review at 1 (ARB General Counsel, Jan. 26, 2005). American Truss does not challenge that decision, see Respondent's Brief (Brief) at 2, and we here reaffirm it. "By attempting to ‘incorporate' all of the arguments it made below, and thus exhorting this panel to conduct a complete review of" the hearing record and its closing statement before the ALJ, American Truss "‘invites us to unearth its arguments lodged . . . in [that record and closing statement], leaving it to us to skip over repetitive material, to recognize and disregard any arguments that are now irrelevant, and to harmonize the arguments' it has made at various stages of litigation," and thus "attempts . . . to transfer its duty to make arguments to the judges of this panel." Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr S.A., 377 F.3d 1164, 1167 n.4 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Sixth Circuit decision "explaining the impropriety of the practice [of incorporation] and adopting the position of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, all of which reject the practice"). Moreover, the regulations governing our review of an ALJ's decision require that a petition for review "[s]pecify the issue or issues in the [ALJ] decision giving rise to such petition" and "[s]tate the specific reason or reasons why the party petitioning for review believes such decision and order are in error." 20 C.F.R. § 655.845(b); see 20 C.F.R. § 655.845(e)(1). By "request[ing] that we ferret out and review any and all arguments it made below – without explaining which ones have merit, and where the [ALJ] may have erred," American Truss "clearly runs afoul" of these regulations. Four Seasons Hotels, 377 F.3d at 1167 n.4. Therefore, we hold that American Truss "has waived the arguments it has not properly presented for review." Id.
2 See also 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n); 20 C.F.R. § 655.700 to 855; Secretary's Order No. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002), § 4(c)(18) (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board) (giving ARB authority to review ALJ decisions "as provided for or pursuant to . . . 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)").
3 Before the hearing, American Truss did not indicate that vacation and holiday hours were an issue. See Respondent's Amended Pre-Hearing Submission at 1-2. The Administrator did not ask any questions about such hours at the hearing, and did not include any argument on this issue in either of her written submissions to the ALJ. See Administrator's Pre-Hearing Submission at 3-4; Administrator's Closing Argument at 4-8.
4 See, e.g., Belt v. Emcare, Inc., 444 F.3d 403, 408 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 349 (2006) (to raise argument below, "litigant must press and not merely intimate the argument during the proceedings . . . . If an argument is not raised to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it, we will not address it on appeal"); Four Seasons Hotels, 377 F.3d at 1168-71 (declining to address argument not raised below).
5 The position of Administrator was vacant at the time the Response was due.
6 The exchange is reproduced here in full:
MR. COLANGELO: . . . Now, Mr. Norris [the WHD Investigator], does that take into account any kinds of vacations or holidays, to your knowledge?
WITNESS: The companies under the H-1B regulations need to offer to the H-1B employees the same benefits as those offered to other employees. So, if an H-1B employee elects to receive vacation, which they technically would, I'm sure, and it's a two-week vacation and they're not at work during those two weeks, then they would not have to be paid an [sic] additional hours that they didn't work, they'd have to take the vacation.
BY. MR, COLANGELO:
Q: Is it reasonable to assume that an alien would not be working a full 52-week year, from your previous statements?
A: Most people don't work in every work week of the year, is my experience. But, you never [sic], some people do.
Q: Absolutely. If an employer has guaranteed the [sic] 40 hours a week times 52 weeks a year, that comes out to a certain figure, is that right?
A: That's correct.
Q: So, essentially, if someone were to take two weeks off the employer would still have to guarantee that person monies for that time, is that right?
A: If they guarantee that to the Government, but if an employee takes time off, then it's – they don't have vacation time, let's just say that they take a week off, above and beyond what the vacation required, and this is maybe to take a trip to California because they want to go out there and they are granted that time off, the employer would not have to pay for that time.
Q: Okay. And that's – that's what I was concerned about. I don't – just for clarification, I don't see any vacation weeks subtracted in these calculations. Let me – let me rephrase the question, Your Honor. To your knowledge, did you see any breaks in [the company's] records showing vacation time?
A: I put down as hours the hours that were listed on the regular and overtime columns. There are also hours listed as – coded as H, and there's hours recorded as VA, which I assume are vacation.
Q: Moving on . . . .
T. 49-50.
7 American Truss filed a Reply Brief (Reply) out of time, and without seeking an extension before time expired. Because the Reply relates only to the issue of holiday and vacation hours, we need not determine whether to admit it. We have not considered any arguments made in the Reply in reaching our decision. (The Reply does not indicate any place in the hearing or Closing Statement, beyond the instances we discuss above, where American Truss might have raised below its argument regarding vacation and holiday hours.)