SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
DAVID G. DYE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 In documents filed with the Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), whose decision is on appeal in this case, and with the Administrative Review Board, Powers listed "et al." as additional unspecified complainants and NWA, INC; Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., d/b/a NWA Airlink as a contractor for NWA, INC.; Pinnacle Airlines Corporation; Pinnacle Airlines Corporation of Tennessee; NWA Airlink, Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., VP Marketing & Sales, Mr. Phil Reed; Mr. Phil Reed, An Individual; Mr. Phil Trenary, NWA Airlink Pinnacle President and CEO, Director of the Board, Pinnacle Airlines Corporation; Mr. Phil Trenary, An Individual; NWA Airlink Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., Memphis Director of In-Flight, Mr. Theodore Davies; Mr. Theodore Davies, An Individual; Pinnacle Airlines Inc., and Pinnacle Airlines Corporation, VP Human Resources and Board Member, Ms. Alice Pennington; Ms. Alice Pennington, an Individual; NWAC; NWA Incorporated; Mr. Doug Hall, an Individual; DLA Piper Rudnick, Gray Cary US LLP; PACE International Union; Ms. Teresa Brents, PACE Local 5-0772 President; Ms. Teresa Brents, An Individual; PACE International Union, Region VII International Rep., Mr. James N. Hendricks; Mr. James N. Hendricks, An Individual; Pollution Control Industries {"PCI"} of Tennessee, LLC; PCI, INC; Mr. John M. Newell, President, PCI, INC. and PCI of Tenn.; Weinburg Richmond LLP; Mr. Lawrence Karlin, An Individual; The Winchester Law Firm; Mr. Mark Grai, An Individual; Mesaba Airlines; MAIR Holdings Inc., et al as respondents. In an Order dated August 31, 2005, the ALJ found that the only proper complainant in this case is Powers and the only proper respondent is Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., her employer. Given our disposition of this case, it is not necessary for us to review the ALJ's Status Order.
2 49 U.S.C.A. § 42121 (West 2005 Supp.). AIR 21 extends whistleblower protection to employees in the air carrier industry who engage in certain activities that are related to air carrier safety. 29 C.F.R. § 1979.101 (2006). Air carriers, contractors and their subcontractors are prohibited from discharging or "otherwise discriminat[ing] against any employee with respect to the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the employee)," engaged in the air carrier safety-related activities the statute covers. 49 U.S.C.A. § 42121(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.102(a).
3 R. D. & O. at 14.
4 Order Denying Request for Reconsideration at 1.
5 Secretary's Order No. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110 (a).
6 Notice of Appeal and Order Establishing Briefing at 1-2.
7 Order at 2-4.
8 Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962).
9 Powers v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., ARB No. 04-102, ALJ-AIR-6 (ARB Dec. 30, 2004, Reissued Jan. 5, 2005), aff'd sub nom. Powers v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, et al., Nos. 04-4441/05-3266 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2006), cert. denied, 75 U.S.L.W. 3172 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2006)(No. 06-5474); Powers v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., ARB No. 04-035, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-012 (ARB Sept. 28, 2004), aff'd sub nom. Powers v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, et al., Nos. 04-4441/05-3266 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2006), cert. denied, 75 U.S.L.W. 3172 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2006)(No. 06-5474); Blodgett v. TVEC, ARB No. 03-043, ALJ No. 2003-CAA-7 (ARB March 19, 2003) (dismissing complaint for failure to comply with briefing order); cf. Fed. R. App. P. 31(c) (allowing dismissal as sanction for failure to file a conforming brief); Fed R. App. P. 41(b) (permitting courts to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with court orders).
10 844 F.2d 1254, 1256 (1988).
11 Powers v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., ARB No. 04-102, ALJ-AIR-6 (ARB Dec. 30, 2004, Reissued Jan. 5, 2005), aff'd sub nom. Powers v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, et al., Nos. 04-4441/05-3266 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2006), cert. denied, 75 U.S.L.W. 3172 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2006)(No. 06-5474); Powers v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., ARB No. 04-035, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-012 (ARB Sept. 28, 2004), aff'd sub nom. Powers v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, et al., Nos. 04-4441/05-3266 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2006), cert. denied, 75 U.S.L.W. 3172 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2006)(No. 06-5474).
12 Supplemental Responses & Objections at 7.
13 We note that Powers routinely petitions the Board for reconsideration of its orders. We repeat the admonition of a federal district court to Powers addressing this practice before that court: "The plaintiff is CAUTIONED that motions for reconsideration should be filed only when the Court clearly made a mistake of fact or law or when the factual situation has changed materially since the filing of the original motion. Repeated motions for reconsideration are not acceptable merely because a party disagrees with the Court's decision." Powers v. NWA, Inc., No. 05-2468-B/P (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 13, 2006)(Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration).