No sanctions for actions in agency proceedings

Listen to this article

Attorneys and parties can’t be sanctioned by a federal court for actions at an administrative proceeding before the Department of Labor (DOL).

State Bar regulators may have something to say about filing frivolous suits or uncivil behavior, but unless a federal statute directly authorizes courts to award sanctions, the federal courts can’t do anything about it.

On Mar. 12, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb dismissed the referral of a case to the court from an administrative law judge in the DOL.

The case began when Rick Jackson filed a complaint with the DOL against Smedema Trucking, Inc., alleging retaliation for making safety-related complaints, in violation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act.

The ALJ ruled in favor of the employer, and also found that the complaint was submitted without evidentiary support, for the purpose of harassing the employer.

Lacking authority to impose sanctions against Jackson, the ALJ referred the case to federal court for the impositions of sanctions under Rule 11 for filing a frivolous complaint, citing 29 C.F.R. 18.29(b) for authority.

That provision provides that an ALJ may certify a case to federal court, if any person, among other activities, disobeys or resists any lawful order or process, or misbehaves during a hearing.

However, Judge Crabb concluded that she lacked jurisdiction to consider the referral, for two reasons.

First, only Congress, and not federal agencies, can confer jurisdiction. Because Congress has not done so with respect to complaints under this act, Judge Crabb concluded she lacked authority to consider the merits of the case.

Crabb acknowledged that other federal courts have concluded that district courts had authority to hear referrals of contempt from ALJs. However, each involved the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, which include a statute granting jurisdiction.

Second, Crabb concluded that, even if the text of Rule 18.29(b) were a federal statute rather than an agency rule, it would not apply to the filing of a frivolous lawsuit.

Crabb found that the plain language of the regulation applies only to misconduct at hearings and refusals to comply with court orders, but not the filing of a frivolous complaint.

Judge Crabb concluded, “Although the frustration of the administrative law judge is understandable, if current law does not provide sufficient tools to curb frivolous administrative complaints, the solution is not to force a square peg into a round hole.

Additional authority must come from the agency or from Congress; it does not exist under sec. 18.29(b).”