Somerson v. Mail Contractors of America, 2002-STA-18 and 19 (ALJ Feb. 11, 2002)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 603 Pilot House Drive, Suite 300 Newport News, Virginia 23606-1904 (757) 873-3099 (757) 873-3634 (FAX)

Issue date: 11Feb2002

CASE NOS.: 2002-STA-0018
    2002-STA-0019

In the Matter of:

DANIEL S. SOMERSON,
    Complainant

    v.

MAIL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA,
    Respondent

   The above actions arise pursuant to § 31105 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, (hereinafter, "STAA" or the "Act") 49 U.S.C. 31101, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978, and the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges at 20 C.F.R. Part 18. A formal hearing was commenced on Wednesday, February 6, 2002 in Jacksonville, Florida, but was terminated due to the misconduct of the Complainant obstructing the hearing. A final decision in the case is pending issuance of a Decision and Order, which will be issued as soon as possible upon receipt of the transcript.

   In the interim on February 7, 2002, the Complainant telephoned this office, and spoke with my Attorney Advisor. The following is a summary of the incident:

On February 7, 2002, Daniel Somerson called the Newport News Office of Administrative Law Judges and was transferred to me. Before the call was transferred, the Legal Technician who answered the phone, advised me that the call was being recorded. Upon answering the call, Mr. Somerson asked for my title. I replied, "law clerk." He asked "to Huddleston?" and I replied "Yes, to Judge Huddleston." He then said: "I want you to give him a message for me. He's an asshole." He then hung up the telephone. All of this transpired around 2:20 in the afternoon.

Memorandum from Attorney Advisor.

   This conduct is clearly contumacious, and will be included in the referral of this entire matter to the United States District Court, including Complainant's conduct at the formal hearing and in prior communications, for a finding of contempt of court.

   It is, accordingly, Ordered that:

1. The Complainant, Daniel S. Somerson shall immediately limit all contacts with this office about his case to communications by U.S. Postal Service, properly served on opposing counsel. See 29 C.F.R. § 18.3;

2. This office will not accept communications from Mr. Somerson by telephone or fax; and

3. Any failure to abide by this order shall be considered additional contumacious conduct.

      Richard E. Huddleston
      Administrative Law Judge