ARB CASE NO. 00-071
ALJ CASE NO. 97-OFC-6
DATE: September 29, 2000
In the Matter of:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION,
DEFENDANT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
Jennifer Robinson, Esq.,
Bioff Singer & Finucane, LLP, Kansas
City, Missouri
For the Defendant: Beverly Dankowitz, Esq.,
U. S. Department of Labor, Washington,
D.C.
REMAND ORDER
On July 19, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended
Decision (R.D.) in this case arising under Executive Order 11246 and 41 C.F.R. Part 60. The ALJ
found that the defendant, Interstate Brands Corporation (Interstate), discriminated in entry-level
laborer hiring in violation of the Executive Order and regulations. The ALJ issued his R.D. only on
the liability issue, having bifurcated the liability and remedy issues in the case. The ALJ instructed
the parties that "[I]f necessary, following review by the Administrative Review Board, I will
contact the parties concerning the remedy phase of this proceeding." R.D. at 31-32. Thus, the
ALJ has issued no recommended decision on the remedy.
[Page 2]
On August 11, 2000, we issued an Order to show cause "why the ARB,
consistent with the Secretary's decision in The Cleveland ClinicFoundation, [91-
OFC-20 (Apr. 18, 1995),] should not remand this case to the ALJ for further proceedings and
issuance of a recommended decision on both liability and remedial relief." We have
considered the parties' responses to our Order, and for the following reasons we remand the case to
the ALJ to conduct further proceedings and to issue a recommended decision on both liability and
remedy.
DISCUSSION
The ARB generally disfavors interlocutory appeals resulting in piecemeal
litigation of cases. Cook v. Shaffer Trucking, Inc., ALJ Case No. 00-STA-17, ARB Case
No. 00-57, Order Denying Interlocutory Appeal, slip op. at 2 (Aug. 31, 2000); Amato v. Assured
Transportation and Delivery, Inc., ALJ Case No. 98-TSC-6, ARB Case No. 98-167, Order
Denying Interlocutory Appeal, slip op. at 2 (Jan. 31, 2000); Hasan v. Commonwealth Edison
Co., ALJ Case No. 99-ERA-17, ARB Case No. 99-097, Order Denying Interlocutory Appeal,
slip op. at 2; Allen v. EG &G Defense Materials, Inc., ALJ Case No. 97-SWD-8 & 10, ARB
Case No. 98-073, Order Denying Interlocutory Appeal, slip op. at 2 (Sept. 28, 1998). Consistent
with this general rule, the Secretary of Labor, in The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, refused
to consider the Foundation's interlocutory appeal of an administrative law judge's liability finding
in a case arising under Executive Order 11246 where the judge had bifurcated the liability and
damages issues. The Secretary noted that interlocutory appeals are only "rarely
accepted" and distinguished The Cleveland Clinic Foundation from OFCCP v.
Honeywell, Inc., Case No. 77-OFCCP-3, Secretary's Decision and Order, (June 2, 1993), in
which an interlocutory appeal was accepted stating that:
[Honeywell] was the unusual case in which the ALJ
submitted a Recommended Interlocutory Decision and Order and I
ruled on certain selected issues. That case involved many threshold
procedural and substantive issues of interpretation of E.O. 11,246, as
well as numerous allegations of discrimination in many of the
defendant's employment practices affecting hundreds of employees.
In addition, neither party objected to the Secretary's review of the
ALJ's order as an interlocutory appeal. [The Cleveland Clinic
Foundation] involves only determination of remedies for two
individuals.
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, supra, slip op. at 2.
[Page 3]
In accepting the Honeywell interlocutory appeal, the Secretary had
noted that the case was one of the largest contract compliance cases ever submitted for decision and
that it had been pending before a succession of Secretaries for over ten years. He was concerned that
litigating every issue to a final conclusion could be extremely time consuming and costly and issued
the partial decision with an invitation to the parties to engage in voluntary mediation to resolve the
matter without additional litigation. OFCCP v. Honeywell, Inc., supra, slip op. at
Interstate argues that this case is more closely analogous to Honeywell
than to The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. In so arguing, Interstate points to the fact that this
case, like Honeywell,involves many job applicants. It also argues that the damages
calculation would be complex and the litigation of it costly. However these factors alone do not
provide a sufficient basis for deviating from the general rule that interlocutory appeals will not be
considered.
When the Secretary accepted the interlocutory appeal in Honeywell,
the case had been in litigation for more than ten years. The Secretary considered the interlocutory
appeal of specific limited threshold legal issues in the hope that such decision would encourage the
parties to engage in voluntary mediation. Significantly, the Secretary specifically refused to consider
the issue whether the plaintiff had carried its burden of proving that defendant had violated the
Executive Order.
In this case, Interstate has identified no threshold legal issues the resolution
of which would encourage the parties to engage in voluntary mediation. Instead, Interstate has
requested the ARB to consider the very issue the Secretary refused to consider in Honeywell,
i.e., whether the plaintiff has carried its burden of establishing that the defendant has
violated the Executive Order. Furthermore, while certainly not determinative, the OFCCP in this
case (unlike in Honeywell)does object to the interlocutory appeal.
While we are not unsympathetic to Interstate's concerns regarding the
complexity of the damages calculation and the time and cost involved in litigating the issue, these
factors are inherent in all complex litigation. We do not find these considerations to be sufficiently
egregious or inordinate in this case to override the strong presumption against piecemeal litigation.
Interstate, in the alternative, argues that the ALJ's R.D. on liability is not
interlocutory because "the ALJ has transferred a recommended decision for a final agency
decision as to liability." Defendant Interstate Brands Corporation's Response To The
Administrative Review Board's August 11, 2000, Order to Show Cause at 7.
"Interlocutory" is defined as "interim or temporary, not constituting a final
resolution of the whole controversy." Black's Law Dictionary 819 (7th ed. 1999). Thus,
while the ALJ may have "finally" resolved the liability issue, his ruling is by definition
interlocutory because he has not issued a recommended decision resolving the entire controversy.
Most obviously, Interstate's interpretation would invite the very piecemeal litigation that the general
rule against interlocutory appeals was intended to proscribe.
[Page 4]
No more persuasive is Interstate's argument that "the ARB should
enforce OFCCP's agreement to bifurcation." Defendant Interstate Brands Corporation's
Response To The Administrative Review Board's August 11, 2000, Order to Show Cause at 8-9.
Regardless whether OFCCP understood at the time that the agreement would extend to an
interlocutory appeal to the ARB, rather than just to the proceedings before the ALJ, the decision
whether the ARB will accept an interlocutory appeal is not subject to agreement by the private
parties. Such decision remains always within the ARB's sole discretion.
ORDER
Finding no sufficient reason to depart from the general rule against acceptance
of interlocutory appeals, we REMAND this case to the ALJ to conduct further proceedings
and to issue a recommended decision resolving the case in its entirety.