Eisenberg v. United Airlines, Inc.

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001
IN THE MATTER OF:
JEFFREY EISENBERG,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
ARB CASE NO. 2025-0090
ALJ CASE NO. 2025-AIR-00014
ALJ HEATHER C. LESLIE
DATE: February 10, 2026
Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and BURRELL,
Administrative Appeals Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21) and its
implementing regulations.1 A United States Department of Labor Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order Granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on August 25, 2025. Under the applicable implementing regulations,
parties desiring to seek review of an ALJ’s order must file a written petition for
review with the Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) within ten business
days of the date of the ALJ’s decision.2 Thus, to be timely, Complainant was
required to file a petition for review with the Board on or before September 9, 2025.
Complainant filed his Petition for Review with the Board via its Electronic Filing
and Service (EFS) system on September 11, 2025.
On September 22, 2025, the Board issued a Notice of Appeal Acceptance,
Electronic Filing Requirements, and Briefing Order (Briefing Order). Under the
terms of the Briefing Order, Complainant was ordered to file his Opening Brief
1 49 U.S.C. § 42121; 29 C.F.R. Part 1979 (2025).
2 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110(a).

2
within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of issuance of the Board’s Briefing Order,
i.e., by October 20, 2025.
As of December 3, 2025, Complainant had not filed his Opening Brief. For
this reason and in response to Respondent United Airlines’ Motion to Dismiss for
Complainant’s Failure to Timely Appeal or File Opening Brief (Motion), the Board
issued an Order to Show Cause on December 3, 2025. The Order to Show Cause
ordered Complainant to explain on or before December 15, 2025, why the Board
should not dismiss his appeal for failing to file a timely petition for review and/or
for failing to file a timely opening brief. Complainant was also ordered to file his
Opening Brief with his response. The Board informed Complainant that if it did not
receive the Complainant’s response to the Order and his Opening Brief within ten
(10) calendar days of the issuance of the Order, the Board could dismiss the appeal
without further notice to the parties.
On December 16, 2025, Complainant emailed the Board and indicated that
his response to the Motion to Dismiss was attached.3 The two attachments to his
email were titled with the headings 1) Response to United Airlines, Inc. Motion to
Dismiss Incorporated Remarks on Docket Records Contamination Case backlog –
Pending Administrative Review Board Motion to Compel OALJ Records per FOIA
Request Submitted 9/29, and 2) Supplemental Filing Regarding Sua Sponte
Conversion and Due Process Violations (a filing in U.S. District Court).4 The
Complainant did not file an Opening Brief. On December 22, 2025, Respondent filed
a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Complainant’s Failure to Timely Appeal
or File Opening Brief and on December 23, 2025, Complainant emailed a response
to Respondent’s Reply.5 For the first time in this response, Complainant included a
screenshot of what appears to be an email from the Board’s technical team, showing
contact on September 9, 2025, his deadline for filing a petition for review, between
Complainant and the Board about filing his appeal.
3 Complainant’s email was sent at 12:15 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Also, on
December 14, 2025, Complainant emailed the Department’s FOIA Requests email address
and also sent the email to the Board. The email referred to a FOIA request he had made
and referenced the Board’s Order to Show Cause, the response to which was due on
December 15, 2025.
4 The Board accepted these two documents as filings in this matter.
5 The Board accepted Complainant’s response to Respondent’s Reply in this matter.

3
Between December 16, 2025, and January 26, 2026, Complainant sent over
thirty emails to the Board. These near daily emails purported to contain updates on
his case and some contained attachments that are styled as motions or themselves
purport to be motions. These included: (1) “PRE HOLIDAY CASE TAINT
HOUSEKEEPING AND CORRECTIVE MOTIONS” sent via email attachment on
December 24, 2025; and (2) “Jan 9 2026 Update – DOL Records Spoliation.
IMPORTANT DISCOVERY MOTION – TIME SENSTIVE” sent via email on
January 9, 2026. The former document did not request any particular action by the
Board. The latter requested the Board to compel the ALJ who heard the case below
to “submit to video recorded deposition.” This request, sent via email, also requested
the Board to “DOCKET THIS MOTION WITH CORRESPONDING FILING DATE
JANUARY 9, 2025. [sic] (Today).” These documents and Complainant’s other emails
were not accepted or docketed by the Board, as they did not comply with the
Briefing Order.
On January 26, 2026, the Board issued an Order, ordering Complainant,
within 10 calendar days of the issuance of the order, to: 1) respond to Respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss on this matter, including with argument and proof that his
Petition for Review was timely filed or why his Petition should be accepted even
though it was untimely filed, 2) identify all of the documents he filed between
September 11 and September 20, 2025, that he considered to be part of his Petition
for Review in this matter, 3) file an Opening Brief addressing the ALJ’s decision to
dismiss his complaint because it was untimely filed and that no grounds existed for
equitable modification, 4) file all of his responses as ordered using the EFS system
or by U.S. Mail (or personal or commercial delivery), and 5) refrain from submitting
any further filings using the Board’s email address.
In the Order, the Board again noted that it has the authority to issue
sanctions, including dismissal, for a party’s failure to comply with the Board’s
orders and briefing requirements.6 Indeed, the Board has the inherent power to
dismiss a case for failure to prosecute in an effort to control its docket and to
promote the efficient disposition of its cases.7 The Board’s authority to dismiss an
appeal for failure to comply with Board orders is well established and critical for the
6 Knibb v. N.J. Transit Rail Ops., Inc., ARB No. 2023-0011, ALJ No. 2020-FRS-00078,
slip op. at 4 (ARB Feb. 3, 2023) (citation omitted).
7 Id. (citation omitted).

4
Board to fulfill its obligations on behalf of the Secretary of Labor.8 The Board
particularly highlighted that “If the Board d[id] not receive the Complainant’s
responses to this Order and Opening Brief within ten (10) calendar days of
the issuance of this Order in the manner described above, the Board may
dismiss the appeal without further notice to the parties.”
Complainant’s response to the Board’s Order was due on February 4, 2026.
To date, Complainant has not filed a response to the Board’s Order using the EFS
system. Additionally, the Board has not received any response from Complainant as
filed by U.S. Mail or personal or commercial delivery. The Board’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure specify that “a document filed using a method other than the
Department’s electronic case management system is considered filed when received
by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards.” 29 C.F.R. § 26.3(b). As no such filing has been
received, Complainant has failed to file a response to the Board’s January 26, 2026
Order.9 Given Complainant’s failure to file a response to, and comply with, the
Board’s orders, we hereby DISMISS Complainant’s appeal.
SO ORDERED.
RANDEL K. JOHNSON
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
THOMAS H. BURRELL
Administrative Appeals Judge
8 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).
9 On January 27, 2026, at 2:52 a.m., EST, Complainant emailed the Board a
document with the filename “Special Spotlight on Spoilation – Reply to ARB
Correspondence of Jan 26 2026.” In response, on January 27, 2026, at 3:10 p.m., EST, the
Board emailed Complainant reiterating that his emailed document would not be accepted
and that he was required to file with the Board using the Board’s electronic system or by
U.S. Mail or personal or commercial delivery. Approximately an hour later, at 4:07 p.m.,
EST, Complainant again emailed the Board indicating that he would upload a response
before the deadline. The Board did not respond to this email.