Professional Documents
Culture Documents
William Johnson, :
Plaintiff, :
Defendant. :
2
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 3 of 18
3
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 4 of 18
4
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 5 of 18
5
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 6 of 18
6
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 7 of 18
7
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 8 of 18
8
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 9 of 18
Mr. Johnson.
The Court will address these issues in a slightly different
order. The first question to be resolved is whether the
Department of Labor correctly decided that Rasputin owed back
wages and, as a result, violated the SCA. If there was no
violation, it is irrelevant whether Mr. Johnson was a responsible
party. After the Court addresses that issue, and if the DOL’s
decision concerning violations is upheld, the Court will then
address the question of whether Mr. Johnson was properly held
responsible for those violations, properly debarred, and whether
those actions can stand in light of his bankruptcy filing.
Before answering any of these questions, however, it is essential
to determine the appropriate standard under which the Court
reviews the Administrative Review Board’s decision.
A.
The parties agree that the Court is authorized to review the
DOL decision under the Administrative Procedure Act. However,
rather than the usual standard for reviewing agency actions under
that statute, which is an “arbitrary and capricious” standard,
the relevant statutory scheme sets forth a somewhat different
standard. As this Court noted in Elaine’s Cleaning Service v.
United States Department of Labor, 1995 WL 1612534 (S.D. Ohio),
aff’d 106 F.3d 726 (6th Cir. 1995), 41 U.S.C. §353(a) “provides
that Sections 4 and 5 of the Walsh-Healey Act, 41 U.S.C. §§38 and
39, apply with respect to the Secretary’s authority to enforce
provisions of the Act.” 41 U.S.C. §39 provides that findings
made by the Secretary of Labor in an administrative proceeding
such as this one are “conclusive in any court of the United
States” if those findings are “supported by the preponderance of
the evidence....” Id. at *1. In other words, as Elaine’s
Cleaning held, “‘The District Court’s scope of review is limited
to the legal question of whether the ALJ applied and satisfied
9
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 10 of 18
10
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 11 of 18
11
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 12 of 18
12
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 13 of 18
13
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 14 of 18
14
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 15 of 18
15
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 16 of 18
16
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 17 of 18
17
Case 2:04-cv-00775-TPK Document 19 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 18 of 18
18