Corrada v. McDonald's Corp., 2004-SOX-7 (ALJ Jan. 23, 2004)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-8002

Issue Date: 23 January 2004
Case No.: 2004-SOX-00007

In The Matter of

MARGARITA CORRADA
    Complainant

    v.

McDONALD'S CORPORATION
    Respondent

    This case arises under §806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1514A ("Sarbanes-Oxley Act"). That statute provides protection for whistleblowers who are employees of publicly traded companies by permitting them to file a complaint with the Department of Labor. However, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act further provides that the complainant may file a complaint for de novo review in the United States District Court "if the Secretary [of Labor] has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the claimant". 18 U.S.C. §1514A(b)(1).

    The complainant filed his claim with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") of the Department of Labor on June 30, 2003. One hundred eighty days from June 30, 2003 is December 27, 2003. OSHA completed its investigation and notified the parties that it denied the complaint on October 16, 2003. Complainant filed her appeal of that decision with this Office on November 5, 2003, and the case was assigned to me for hearing and decision on November 7, 2003. On November 17, 2003 I held a conference call with counsel during which a hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2004 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and a schedule for the completion of discovery and pre-hearing exchanges was set.

    On January 14, 2004, the complainant notified this Office that she intended to remove this case to U.S. District Court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, but in a conference call on January 16, 2004 I denied complainant's motion for a stay of the Department of Labor proceeding pending the assertion of jurisdiction by the District Court. Then, during a conference call on January 20, 2004, counsel stated that an appropriate claim had been filed in District Court. This morning I received a fax of an order issued yesterday by Federal District Court Judge Jay A. Garcia- Gregory asserting jurisdiction over the complaint and staying the Department of Labor proceeding.

    In his order, Judge Garcia-Gregory ordered me to demonstrate whether the failure of the Department of Labor to issue a final decision in this proceeding within 180 days was due to the bad faith of the complainant, since a lack of bad faith on the complainant's part is required for removal of the case to Federal District Court. But there is no indication whatsoever of bad faith on the part of the complainant. Accordingly, there is no impediment to the District Court assuming jurisdiction over this case.

    Since the U.S. District Court now has jurisdiction over this case, the Department of Labor's role has terminated, and Case No. 2004-SOX-00007 is dismissed.

       JEFFREY TURECK
       Administrative Law Judge