US Tech Workers v. Morningstar, Inc.

20 OCAHO no. 1603 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER US TECH WORKERS ET AL., Complainant, v. MORNINGSTAR, INC., Respondent. August 15, 2024 Appearances: John M. Miano, Esq., for Complainant Tejas Shah, Esq., for Respondent 8 U.S.C. § 1324b Proceeding OCAHO Case No. 2024B00100 ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME This case arises under the antidiscrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. Complainant, US Tech Workers, et al., filed a Complaint with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) on April 23, 2024, against Respondent, Morningstar, Inc., alleging citizenship discrimination in hiring. On May 6, 2024, the Chief Administrative Officer sent a Notice of Case Assignment for Complaint Alleging Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices and a copy of the Complaint (the “Complaint package”) by United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail to an address provided by the Complainant in the Complaint.

As the USPS tracking service website indicated that the complaint package was “in transit” for over a month, and the address did not include an individual or agent to receive service, the Court issued an order of inquiry to Complainant seeking assistance in providing an alternate address. The Court resent the complaint package to the new address provided by Complainant on July 3, 2024. On July 30, 2024, Complainant filed a Motion to Consolidate, Stay Discovery, and for Leave to File a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Court will address this motion at a later date.

On August 8, 2024, Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time. Respondent asserts that it was served with the Complaint by certified mail on July 8, 2024, and that therefore the deadline to file an answer is August 7, 2024. Mot. Extension Time 3; see also 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(a).1 The 1 OCAHO Rules of Practice and Procedure, 28 C.F.R. pt. 68 (2023).

20 OCAHO no. 1603 Respondent requests a 30-day extension to file an answer to the Complaint due to counsel’s work and travel obligations through July and early August. Mot. Extension Time 4. Respondent does not indicate whether it discussed the motion with Complainant, but Complainant has not filed an objection.

“OCAHO rules do not provide specific standards for granting extensions, but the standard routinely applied is good cause.” Tingling v. City of Richmond, 13 OCAHO no. 1324c, 2 (2021) (citations omitted).2 Good cause requires “a demonstration of good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement of time and some reasonable basis for noncompliance with the time specified in the rule.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court finds that Respondent has shown good cause for an extension of the deadline to file an answer to the Complaint. Respondent’s counsel asserts that he requires more time to assess and respond to the Complaint’s allegations, given his work and travel obligations. Given this explanation, and the short period of time requested, the Court finds good cause for a 30-day extension of the answer deadline.

See, e.g., United States v. Space Expl. Techs. Corp., 18 OCAHO no. 1499, 7 (2023) (finding good cause for extension of answer deadline where the motion was agreed, it was the first requested extension, and the request for 30 days was unlikely to substantially impact the proceedings). Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED, and Respondent’s answer deadline is EXTENDED until September 6, 2024.

SO ORDERED.

Dated and entered on August 15, 2024. __________________________________ Honorable Jean C. King Chief Administrative Law Judge 2 Citations to OCAHO precedents in bound volumes one through eight include the volume and case number of the particular decision followed by the specific page in the bound volume where the decision begins; the pinpoint citations which follow are to the pages, seriatim, of the specific entire volume. Pinpoint citations to OCAHO precedents after volume eight, 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 through the Westlaw database “FIM OCAHO,” the LexisNexis database “OCAHO,” and on the United States Department of Justice’s website: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-administrative-hearing-officer-decisions. 2