US Tech Workers et al. v. Deere & Company

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER 19 OCAHO no. 1539 US TECH WORKERS ET AL., Complainant, v. DEERE & COMPANY Respondent. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b Proceeding OCAHO Case No. 2024B00043 Appearances: John M. Miano, JD, for Complainant1 Eric S. Bord, Esq. and Eric L. Mackie, Esq., for Respondent ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME This case arises under the antidiscrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. Complainant, US Tech Workers, filed a Complaint with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) on February 9, 2024, alleging that Respondent, Deere & Company, discriminated on the basis of citizenship status in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(1). On February 21, 2024, the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer sent by certified U.S. mail a copy of the Complaint and a Notice of Case Assignment for Complaint Alleging Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices (NOCA) to the address identified for Respondent in the complaint.

The United States Postal Service website’s tracking information indicates that the complaint and NOCA were delivered to Respondent on February 26, 2024.2 On March 20, 2024, Respondent filed a Notice of Appearance for two attorneys, and Respondent’s First Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. In its Motion for Extension of Time, Respondent writes that counsel was recently retained and are “investigating the allegations 1 The Complaint lists John M. Miano, JD as the “attorney or authorized representative” for Complainant. To the extent that Mr. Miano is an attorney seeking to represent the Complainant in this matter, he must file a notice of appearance in compliance with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 68.33(f). 2 In its Motion, Respondent states that it received the complaint on February 27, 2024, the day after the U.S. Postal Service’s tracking website indicates it reached Respondent.

If accurate, that would make the answer deadline March 28, 2024, as Respondent indicates. This Court generally relies on the mail tracking information to calculate answer deadlines. The extension request was timely and the one-day difference makes little difference in that context. 19 OCAHO no. 1539 in the complaint.” Mot.

Extension 2. Respondent also indicates that that it may file a responsive motion. Id. Respondent asks for a 30-day extension until April 29, 2024, to “fully evaluate the complaint and prepare and appropriate responsive pleading.” Id. Respondent says that it consulted with Complainant about the extension request and that Complainant did not object. Id. “OCAHO’s Rule of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings do not provide specific standards for granting extensions, but the standard routinely applied is good cause.” United States v. Space Exploration Techs., 18 OCAHO no. 1499, 5 (2023) (citing United States v. Exim, 3 OCAHO no. 591, 1925, 1929 (1993); United States v. Four Star Knitting, Inc., 5 OCAHO no. 815, 711, 714 (1995 3; see also Talebinejad v. Mass.

Inst. Tech., 17 OCAHO no. 1464, 2 (2022) (citing Tingling v. City of Richmond, 13 OCAHO no. 1324c, 2 (2021 . Here, Respondent asks for an extension of time to file an answer because counsel was recently retained, and has consulted with Complainant, who does not object to the extension request. This Court has previously found good cause for extension of the answer deadline where counsel was recently retained.

See e.g. Ackermann v. Mindlance, Inc., 17 OCAHO no. 1462, 1-2 (2022); Lowden, Jr., v. Ann Arbor Elec. JATC Training Ctr., 18 OCAHO no. 1490, 2 (2023). Additionally, Respondent has indicated that Complainant was informed of and consented to the extension request. Given the short length of the extension, the fact that the case is in its early stages, and that the motion is seemingly unopposed, the Court finds that an extension would not prejudice Complainant.

The Court therefore finds that Respondent has shown good cause for an extension of the answer deadline. The Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion for extension of time to file the answer. Respondent’s answer is due no later than April 29, 2024.

SO ORDERED

Dated and entered on March 27, 2024 __________________________________ John A. Henderson Administrative Law Judge 3 Citations to OCAHO precedents reprinted in bound Volumes 1 through 8 reflect the volume number and the case number of the particular decision, followed by the specific page in that volume where the decision begins; the pinpoint citations which follow are thus to the pages, seriatim, of the specific entire volume. Pinpoint citations to OCAHO precedents subsequent to Volume 8, where the decision has not yet been reprinted in a bound volume, are to pages within the original issuances; the beginning page number of an unbound case will always be 1, and is accordingly omitted from the citation. Published decisions may be accessed in the Westlaw database “FIMOCAHO,” or in the LexisNexis database “OCAHO,” or on the website at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office- of-the-chief-administrative-hearing-officer-decisions. 2