Wang v. Capgemini America Inc.

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001
IN THE MATTER OF:
JOHN XIAOZHONG WANG,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
CAPGEMINI AMERICA INC.,
RESPONDENT.
ARB CASE NO. 2026-0038
DATE: May 20, 2026
Appearances:
John Xiaozhong Wang; Pro Se; Farmington Hills, Michigan
Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and KAPLAN,
Administrative Appeals Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On May 12, 2026, Complainant John Xiaozhong Wang filed with the
Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) a “Petition for Review —
Identification of OSHA’s Errors, Failures, and Prejudicial Findings” (Petition for
Review), along with an April 24, 2026 determination letter (Determination Letter)
from Nathan Terwilliger, Assistant Regional Administrator for the Chicago
Regional Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
On May 20, 2026, Complainant filed four additional documents: (1) a “Supplemental
Filing of Complaint,” (2) a second “Supplemental Filing of Complaint,” (3) a second
“Petition for Review,” and (4) a “Combined ARB Filing.”
It appears from the materials filed by Complainant that he filed a complaint
against Respondent Capgemini America Inc. on April 14, 2025, alleging violations of
Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 660(c) (Section
11(c)), related to the termination of his employment from Respondent. In the
Determination Letter, OSHA dismissed Complainant’s complaint because it did “not
have reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 11(c) . . . occurred.”

2
In the Petition for Review, Complainant asks the Board to review OSHA’s
Determination Letter.
The Secretary of Labor has delegated authority to the ARB to hear and
decide appeals from decisions of United States Department of Labor Administrative
Law Judges and the Administrator of the Department’s Wage and Hour Division
under specific statutes and regulations.1 The ARB’s jurisdiction is limited and it can
only hear appeals arising under the statutes and authorities specifically delegated
to it by the Secretary of Labor.2
The Board does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals arising
under Section 11(c).3 The procedures for Section 11(c) complaints can be found in
29 C.F.R. Part 1977 and the Determination Letter included information on how
Complainant could appeal to the Director of the Directorate of Whistleblower
Protection Programs. Accordingly, we DISMISS this case.
SO ORDERED.
RANDEL K. JOHNSON
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
ELLIOT M. KAPLAN
Administrative Appeals Judge
1 Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of
Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 85 Fed. Reg. 13186 (Mar. 6, 2020).
2 See Adm’r, Wage & Hour Div., U.S. Dep’t of Lab. v. Five M’s, LLC, ARB No. 2019-
0014, ALJ Nos. 2015-FLS-00010, -00011, slip op. at 14 (ARB Nov. 13, 2020) (“The Board
was created by delegation from the Secretary of Labor and, therefore, has a limited and
defined jurisdiction and scope of authority.”).
3 See generally Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020, 85 Fed. Reg. at 13186-87 (listing the
statutes and regulations delegated to the ARB, which do not include Section 11(c)).