Robles v. Mr. Bults, Inc.

U.S. Department of Labor 	Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001
IN THE MATTER OF:
SERGIO B. ROBLES,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
MR. BULTS, INC., TEAMSTERS 731,
and WASTE MANAGEMENT,
RESPONDENTS.
ARB CASE NO. 2025-0058
ALJ CASE NO. 2025-STA-00050,
-00051, -00052
ALJ DREW A. SWANK
DATE: February 20, 2026
Appearances:
For the Complainant:
Sergio B. Robles; Pro Se; Rockford, Illinois
For the Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc.:
Tom H. Luetkemeyer, Esq.; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP; Chicago,
Illinois
For the Respondent Teamsters 731:
Rachel R. Rekowski, Esq.; Herzfeld, Suetholz, Gastel, Leniski & Wall,
PLLC; Cincinnati, Ohio
For the Respondent Waste Management:
John W. Stapleton, Esq.; Fisher & Phillips LLP; Atlanta, Georgia
Before KAPLAN and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges
DECISION AND ORDER
This case arises under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
(STAA), as amended, and its implementing regulations.0F
1 Complainant Sergio B.
1 	49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2025).

2
Robles filed whistleblower complaints with the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging that Respondents
Mr. Bult’s, Inc., Teamsters 731, and Waste Management unlawfully retaliated
against him for engaging in STAA protected activity.1F
2 OSHA dismissed the
complaints as untimely. Complainant objected to OSHA’s determination and the
case was assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On May 7, 2025, the ALJ
dismissed the complaints as untimely.2F
3 Complainant petitioned the Administrative
Review Board (Board) for review of the ALJ’s Order. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
B ACKGROUND
On October 6, 2023, Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. began the process of
terminating Complainant’s employment.3F
4 On October 9, 2023, Mr. Bults, Inc.
formally notified Complainant that his employment was terminated.4F
5
On January 18, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with OSHA, alleging
that Respondents Teamsters 731 and Mr. Bults, Inc. colluded and retaliated against
him by terminating him in reprisal for raising safety and health concerns in
violation of the STAA.5F
6 On January 21, 2025, Complainant filed another complaint
with OSHA alleging the same against Respondent Waste Management.6F
7 OSHA
dismissed Complainant’s complaints.
Complainant filed an objection and requested a hearing before an ALJ with
the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). On April 21, 2025, Respondent
Teamsters 731 filed a Motion to Dismiss for Untimely Complaint.7F
8 On April 22,
2025, the ALJ issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Complainant to show why
the motion should not be granted.8F
9
Complainant contended that equitable tolling was necessary to prevent
injustice, and that extraordinary circumstances were warranted because of
Respondents’ alleged withholding of evidence, concealment of an updated collective
2 	Order Dismissing Claim Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1) (ALJ May 7, 2025)
(Order) at 1.
3 	Id.
4 	Id.
5 	Id.
6 	Id.
7 	Id.
8 	Id. at 2.
9 	Id.

3
bargaining agreement, and ongoing interference with his complaint.9F
10 The ALJ
concluded that Complainant’s arguments were meritless and unpersuasive because
Complainant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.10F
11 The ALJ found that
Complainant had actual knowledge of the alleged adverse action on October 6, 2023,
or at the latest on October 9, 2023, when Mr. Bults, Inc. terminated his
employment, and that Complainant did not explain why he did not file his
complaint within the 180-day time period.11F
12 The ALJ determined that equitable
tolling did not apply, and dismissed the whistleblower complaints as untimely.12F
13
Complainant filed a petition for review before the Board. Both parties filed
briefs.13F
14
J URISDICTION AND S TANDARD OF REVIEW
The Secretary of Labor has delegated the Board the authority to hear appeals
from ALJ decisions and issue agency decisions under the STAA.14F
15 The Board
reviews an ALJ’s grant of summary decision de novo under the same standard the
ALJ applies.15F
16 This includes pre-hearing dismissals based on timeliness.16F
17
D ISCUSSION
10 	Id.
11 	Id.
12 	Id.
13 	Id. at 2-3.
14 	Complainant also filed two motions. On September 9, 2025, Complainant filed a
Notice of Respondent Mr. Bult’s, Inc. Non-Compliance with Briefing Order, contending that
Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. should be sanctioned for not filing a response brief.
Complainant cites several cases to support his argument. We deny Complainant’s motion.
Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. was not required to submit a response brief and the cases
Complainant cited to do not support his argument. Next, on September 14, 2025,
Complainant filed a Notice of Respondents’ Procedural Violations Affecting Proceedings,
reiterating his argument above as well as arguments made in his Opening Brief. We are not
persuaded by his arguments and to the extent they can be considered a motion, deny it as
well.
15 	Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of
Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board (Secretary’s discretionary review of ARB
decisions)), 85 Fed. Reg. 13186 (Mar. 6, 2020).
16 	Kirschmann v. Hampton Rds. Transit, ARB No. 2023-0002, ALJ No 2021-NTS-
00006, slip op. at 6 (ARB Feb. 14, 2024) (citation omitted).
17 	Rashad v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0047, ALJ No. 2025-STA-
00039, slip op. at 4 (ARB Aug. 14, 2025) (citation omitted).

4
Summary decision is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to decision as a matter of law.”17F
18 In
considering a motion for summary decision, the Board views the evidence, and
makes all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.18F
19 If the moving party demonstrates an absence of evidence supporting the
non-moving party’s position, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish
the existence of an issue of fact that could affect the outcome of the litigation.19F
20 The
non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations, speculation, or denials, but
must instead set forth specific facts on each issue upon which the non-moving party
would bear the ultimate burden of proof.20F
21 If the non-moving party fails to show an
essential element of their case, there can be no “genuine issue of material fact,”
since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element necessarily renders
all other facts immaterial.21F
22
A complainant pursuing a whistleblower retaliation claim under the STAA
must meet certain deadlines.22F
23 These deadlines apply whether a complainant is
represented by counsel or is proceeding pro se.23F
24 Complainants are responsible for
determining which statute, and which deadline, applies to their case and for
meeting that deadline.24F
25 “[I]gnorance of the law is no excuse” for missing a filing
deadline.25F
26 Employees alleging employer retaliation in violation of the STAA must
file their complaints with OSHA within 180 days of the alleged retaliatory act.26F
27
18 	29 C.F.R. § 18.72(a).
19 	Judy v. Covenant Transp., ARB No. 2021-0015, ALJ No. 2019-STA-00054, slip op. at
4 (ARB Nov. 8, 2021) (citation omitted).
20 	See Kirschmann, ARB No. 2023-0002, slip op. at 6 (citations omitted).
21 	Id. (citation omitted).
22 	White v. Carl Perry Enter., Inc., ARB No. 2014-0024, ALJ No. 2013-STA-00013, slip
op. at 4 (ARB Dec. 10, 2015) (“failure to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of
material fact on any one of these essential elements means that a complainant cannot
prevail on his retaliation claim”).
23 	49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1).
24 	Jeanty v. Lily Transp. Corp., ARB No. 2019-0005, ALJ No. 2018-STA-00013, slip op.
at 12 (ARB May 13, 2020) (citation omitted) (A complainant “is not excused from the rules
of practice and procedure applicable to this proceeding merely because of his [or her] pro se
status.”).
25 	Mehrotra v. Gen. Elec. Co., ARB No. 2022-0060, ALJ No. 2017-SOX-00014, slip op. at
4 (ARB Sept. 21, 2023).
26 	Id. (citing Martin v. Paragon Foods, ARB No. 2022-0058, ALJ No. 2021-FDA-00001,
slip op. at 6 (ARB June 8, 2023) (citation omitted)).
27 	49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1).

5
The Board has found that the statutes of limitation in whistleblower cases
begin to run on the date an employee receives “final, definitive, and unequivocal
notice” of an adverse employment decision.27F
28 The claim accrues on “[t]he date that
an employer communicates a decision to implement such a decision, rather than the
date the consequences of the decision are felt.”28F
29 The Board may modify a filing
deadline under equitable tolling principles, which focus on a complainant’s
“excusable ignorance of the employer’s discriminatory act.”29F
30
Equitable tolling is “a rare and ‘extraordinary measure that applies only
when plaintiff is prevented from filing despite exercising that level of diligence
which could reasonably be expected in the circumstances.’”30F
31 The Board has
recognized several principal situations in which the limitations period may be
tolled, including: (1) when the movant has raised the precise statutory claim in
issue but has done so in the wrong forum; (2) when the movant has in some
extraordinary way been prevented from filing; and (3) when the movant has some
excusable ignorance of the respondent’s discriminatory act.31F
32 Complainant bears
the burden of justifying the application of equitable tolling.32F
33 To invoke equitable
tolling, the claim must be brought within a reasonable time after the complainant
“has obtained, or by due diligence could have obtained, the necessary information”
giving rise to the claim.33F
34
Here, Respondent Mr. Bults, Inc. terminated Complainant’s employment on
October 9, 2023.34F
35 Complainant did not file his OSHA whistleblower complaints
against Respondents Mr. Bults, Inc. and Teamsters 731 until January 18, 2025, and
against Respondent Waste Management until January 21, 2025, approximately
nine months after the 180-day deadline.35F
36 Thus, Complainant’s complaints are
untimely.
28 	Mehrotra, ARB No. 2022-0060, slip op. at 5 (citation omitted).
29 	Id. (citations omitted).
30 	Martin, ARB No. 2022-0058, slip op. at 8 (citations omitted).
31 	Id. at 9 (citation omitted).
32 	Id. (citations omitted).
33 	Id. (citations omitted).
34 	Judy, ARB No. 2021-0015, slip op. at 4 (quoting Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
920 F.2d 446, 453 (7th Cir. 1990)).
35 	Order at 1.
36 	Id.

6
Complainant contends that the ALJ erred in finding that equitable tolling did
not apply.36F
37 Specifically, Complainant alleges that Respondents have a systemic
pattern of obstructing investigations.37F
38 We are not persuaded. Complainant has not
provided evidence to support these allegations and even if he had, he has not
explained how these circumstances prevented him from filing a timely
whistleblower claim. As the ALJ found, these accusations are meritless and without
sufficient proof of either manifest injustice or that equitable tolling applies. Thus,
Complainant’s OSHA complaints are untimely and equitable tolling does not apply.
Next, Complainant contends that the continuing violations doctrine applies.38F
39
Specifically, Complainant alleges that continuing violations are demonstrated by
unpaid wages for training purposes, Respondents withholding evidence,
Respondents’ alleged use of fraudulent documents in Complainant’s unemployment
case, Respondents’ interference with his complaints, and Respondent Teamsters
731’s denial of his grievance and arbitration rights.39F
40
The continuing violations doctrine may allow a complainant “who ordinarily
would be unable to recover damages for discrete acts of discrimination falling
outside the limitations period [to] avoid that bar if those acts are shown to be part of
a pattern of discrimination anchored by acts that occurred within the limitations
period.”40F
41 The continuing violation doctrine is not a grounds for tolling, but instead
“forestalls the commencement of the limitations period for as long as the continuing
violation is ongoing.”41F
42 The continuing violations doctrine does not apply to discrete
acts of alleged discrimination.42F
43 Discrete acts include “termination, failure to
promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire.”43F
44 The continuing violation doctrine is
generally applied in the context of hostile work environment claims.44F
45
We conclude that the continuing violations doctrine does not apply because
the alleged adverse actions taken in this matter were all discrete acts. As the ALJ
37 	Complainant’s (Comp.) Brief (Br.) at 8, 22-23.
38 	Id. at 15-16.
39 	Id. at 5-6.
40 	Id. at 6, 12-14.
41 	Trivedi v. Gen. Elec., ARB No. 2022-0026, ALJ No. 2022-SOX-00005, slip op. at 9
(ARB Aug. 24, 2022) (citation omitted).
42 	Woods v. Boeing-South Carolina, ARB No. 2013-0035, ALJ No. 2011-AIR-00009, slip
op. at 2 n.3 (ARB Mar. 20, 2014) (citation omitted).
43 	Id. (citation omitted).
44 	Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114 (2002).
45 	See id. at 115-21.

7
found, Complainant’s allegations that the alleged adverse actions constituted a
continuing violation lack merit and are unsubstantiated. Complainant has simply
not demonstrated that any of these allegations are part of a pattern of
discrimination that is anchored by acts that occurred within the limitations period.
Thus, the continuing violations doctrine does not apply.
Lastly, Complainant also asserts that, because the ALJ initially accepted
jurisdiction of his complaint and established a hearing schedule, the ALJ’s
dismissal demonstrates a “fundamental misunderstanding or oversight” of the
principles of equitable tolling, continuing violations, and the STAA.45F
46 We disagree.
OALJ initially accepting jurisdiction does not mean that a case cannot be dismissed
on the basis of timeliness. Moreover, Complainant has not adequately explained
how OALJ initially accepting his claim demonstrates that the principles of
equitable tolling apply, how it supports a continuing violation, or how it is contrary
to the STAA.
C ONCLUSION46F
47
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the ALJ’s Order dismissing the complaints.
SO ORDERED.
ELLIOT M. KAPLAN
Administrative Appeals Judge
PHILIP G. KIKO
Administrative Appeals Judge
46 	Comp. Br. at 6.
47 	In any appeal of this Decision and Order that may be filed, we note that the
appropriately named party is the Secretary, Department of Labor (not the Administrative
Review Board).