In re Jefferson

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001
IN THE MATTER OF:
PATRICIA JEFFERSON,
PETITIONER,
ARB CASE NO. 2026-0031
DATE: May 28, 2026
Before KAPLAN and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 2026, the Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) received
a letter from Petitioner Patricia Jefferson stating that she wished “to formally
appeal the denial of my wage and hour complaint and request review by the
Administrative Review Board.” In the letter, Petitioner claimed to have
“documentation demonstrating that I worked overtime on a regular, daily basis and
was not compensated for those hours.” Petitioner enclosed with her letter what
appears to be paystubs and related materials.
On April 10, 2026, the Board received a second letter from Jefferson stating
that she wanted “to appeal the decision of the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S.
Department of Labor denying my wage and hour claim.” It appears from the
materials submitted by Petitioner that she submitted a complaint to the U.S.
Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) alleging that her employer
did not pay her the required overtime rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).1 Petitioner enclosed with her letter a copy of a February 19, 2026 letter
from Paula Ruffin, District Director of the Northern New Jersey District Office of
WHD, stating that WHD “is declining to take further action on your complaint”
because “[t]he WHD receives more than 30,000 complaints each year and its
resources do not permit it to investigate all the complaints it receives.”
1 See 29 U.S.C. § 207.

2
On April 23, 2026, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering
Petitioner to file a written brief within fourteen calendar days explaining why the
Board has jurisdiction to hear the issues raised in her letters to the Board and why
the matter is ripe for Board review. The Board permitted the Administrator of WHD
to file a brief responding to Petitioner’s response within fourteen calendar days of
the date of service thereof.
On May 5, 2026, the Board received Petitioner’s response to the Order to
Show Cause. In her response, Petitioner alleges that she sustained an on-the-job
injury while employed by the United States Postal Service and “engaged in
protected activity by reporting [her] injury, seeking medical care, and requesting
accommodation.” Petitioner further alleges she “experienced adverse actions,
including the removal or denial of accommodations[,] disregard of medical
restrictions, loss of work opportunities and retaliatory treatment that made
continued employment intolerable,” ultimately resulting in her “constructive
discharge.” Petitioner claims that her employer’s action violated the Federal
Employees’ Compensation Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, in addition to the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Petitioner also requested that the Board, if it determines
that it lacks jurisdiction, transfer or refer the matter to the appropriate forum.2 On
May 18, 2026, the Administrator filed a response to the Order to Show Cause
arguing that the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the WHD District Director’s
decision not to investigate Petitioner’s complaint.
The Board is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction.3 Specifically, the Secretary of
Labor has delegated the Board the authority to hear appeals of decisions of the
Administrator of the WHD and final decisions of Administrative Law Judges in
cases arising under certain enumerated statutes.4 Although the Board has some
2 In her response, Petitioner states that the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commissioner, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Officer of Workers’
Compensation Programs may be the appropriate agencies for her disability discrimination,
prohibited personnel action, and FECA-related claims, respectively.
3 Eddis v. LB&B Assocs., Inc., ARB Nos. 2001-0031, -0086, ALJ No. 2000-NQW-00001,
slip op. at 4 (ARB Aug. 8, 2001) (recognizing that the Board has limited jurisdiction);
see also Worksource E. Cent. Ga. v. Emp’t. and Training Admin., ARB No. 2025-0018, ALJ
No. 2024-WIA-00003, slip op. at 5 (ARB Mar. 19, 2025) (recognizing that the Office of
Administrative Law Judges is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction); 2 Am. Jur. 2d
Administrative Law § 256 (2026).
4 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);

3
jurisdiction over certain FLSA claims,5 certain Rehabilitation Act claims,6 and
various whistleblower laws, the Board does not have jurisdiction over claims for
unpaid overtime, 7 disability discrimination, or, outside of limited contexts that are
not relevant here, retaliation for reporting on-the-job injuries, retaliation for
seeking medical accommodations, or retaliation for seeking compensation under the
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.
The Board has not been granted the authority to transfer or formally refer
matters to other agencies, offices, or tribunals and thus we deny Petitioner’s request
to transfer the case to the appropriate agency.
see, e.g., In re Lawn Groomers, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0046, ALJ No. 2025-TLN-00033, slip op.
at 2 (ARB May 14, 2025).
5 Pursuant to its delegated authority, the Board can hear cases dealing with
determinations of “reasonable costs” to an employer for furnishing an employee with
lodging, industrial homework, special certificates for handicapped workers, and civil money
penalties (CMPs) for certain violations. See Secretary’s Order §(5)(a)(14) – (17).
For example, the Administrator can seek to impose CMPs for alleged FLSA overtime
violations. The overtime violations themselves would be litigated in federal district court;
the CMPs would be separately litigated before an ALJ and reviewable by the ARB.
See generally Adm’r, Wage & Hour Div., U.S. Dep’t of Lab. v. TAFS Corp., ARB No.
2023-0007, ALJ Nos. 2021-FLS-00005, -00006 (ARB July 18, 2024).
6 The Board can hear cases arising under Section 503, prohibiting federal contractors
and subcontractors from discriminating against employees with disabilities, and Section
504, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities
receiving federal financial assistance. See Secretary’s Order §(5)(a)(47), (48).
7 See Newsome v. Mitchell, McNutt & Sams, P.A., ARB No. 2004-0082, slip op. at 4
(ARB Sept. 14, 2004) (finding that the Board did not have jurisdiction to review a decision
from a District Director of WHD to not take further action on complainant’s FLSA
complaint alleging unpaid wages).

4
Because the ARB does not have jurisdiction, we DISMISS this case.
SO ORDERED.
ELLIOT M. KAPLAN
Administrative Appeals Judge
PHILIP G. KIKO
Administrative Appeals Judge