Huffman v. American Airlines, 2003-AIR-36 (ALJ Aug. 5, 2003)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges Heritage Plaza Bldg. - Suite 530 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 589-6201 (504) 589-6268 (FAX)

Issue Date: 05 August 2003

CASE NO: 2003-AIR-36

IN THE MATTER OF:

RICHARD HUFFMAN
    Complainant

    v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES
    Respondent

   On July 30, 2003, Complainant filed a letter motion averring that "I am withdrawing my complaint against American Airlines from the Department of Labor investigation. This is due to insufficient time provided to mount an adequate legal case."

   On August 4, 2003, Respondent filed a Response to Complainant's request to withdraw his complaint arguing that Complainant's request should be treated as a withdrawal pursuant to the provisions of 29 C.F.R. Part 1979, Section 1979.111(c).

   Complainant's representation that he does not wish to proceed with his case and request to withdraw his complaint is construed to be an abandonment of his complaint and request for formal hearing. A request for hearing may be dismissed upon its abandonment by the party who filed it. See 29 C.F.R. § 18.39(b).

   Moreover, the Procedures For The Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Section 519 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act For The 21st Century, 29 C.F.R. Part 1979, require that complaints be scheduled for formal hearing "expeditiously." See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.107. Complainant's complaint was assigned to the undersigned for hearing and decision on June 23, 2003. A Notice of Hearing and Pre-Hearing Order issued on June 26, 2003, scheduling a formal hearing on July 29, 2003. On July 11, 2003, Complainant requested and was granted a continuance of his hearing to September 30, 2003. Complainant has been given more than sufficient time to prepare for and prosecute this matter.

   Further, 29 C.F.R. § 1979.111(c) permits a complainant to withdraw his objections to the findings, upon which his request for hearing is based, by filing a withdrawal with the administrative law judge assigned his complaint for hearing. The judge shall determine whether the withdrawal will be approved.

   Since American Airlines does not oppose approval of Complainant's withdrawal request with prejudice and there is no evidence of any inconsistent action by Complainant, I find Complainant's request for withdrawal should be approved.

   Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Complainant's request for withdrawal of his complaint is hereby GRANTED with prejudice.

   The formal hearing presently scheduled in this case for September 30, 2003, in Dallas, Texas, is hereby cancelled.

   ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2003, at Metairie, Louisiana.

      LEE J. ROMERO, JR.
      Administrative Law Judge

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS: This decision shall become the final order of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 1979.110, unless a petition for review is timely filed with the Administrative Review Board ("Board"), US Department of Labor, Room S-4309, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20210, and within 30 days of the filing of the petition, the ARB issues an order notifying the parties that the case has been accepted for review. The petition for review must specifically identify the findings, conclusions or orders to which exception is taken. Any exception not specifically urged ordinarily shall be deemed to have been waived by the parties. To be effective, a petition must be filed within ten business days of the date of the decision of the administrative law judge. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication will be considered to be the date of filing; if the petition is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the petition is considered filed upon receipt. The petition must be served on all parties and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge at the time it is filed with the Board. Copies of the petition for review and all briefs must be served on the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210. See 29 C.F.R. §§§§ 1979.109(c) and 1979.110(a) and (b), as found OSHA, Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under Section 519 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century; Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 14099 (Mar. 21, 2003).