Order RULING AND ORDER-For the foregoing reasons, Complainant’s motion is DENIED and as a sanction is considered stricken. Complainant is also hereby prohibited from filing any further motions for summary decision, in full or part, or from seeking to strike any of Respondent’s counter-allegations or defenses. This matter is best decided on the merits after full hearing and presentation of evidence. The formal hearing in this matter remains scheduled to be conducted on November 17-18, 2026, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Central Time. — 2026STA00020

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
COVINGTON DISTRICT
Issue Date: 13 October 2026
TRINTON GIPSON
VERSUS
BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.
CASE NO.: 2026-STA-00020
OSHA NO.: 301059476
JUDGE DAN C. PANAGIOTIS
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is pro se “COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY DECISION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STRIKE
RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOS. 5 AND 6 PURSUANT TO 29
C.F.R. § 18.72 AND FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f).” Respondent opposes this motion and
points out that Complainant has once again violated this Court’s standing order
regarding use of Artificial Intelligence. The Court excused the first violation by
Complainant with an admonishment. This time is different.
The Court understands that Complainant is self-represented and that it may
be difficult to conduct sophisticated litigation on the same level as a licensed attorney.
Nonetheless, a Notice of Burdens of Proof was issued to Complainant on June 2, 2026
for which he confirmed receipt on June 4, 2026. Besides setting out the burdens of
proof for his claim, the Notice also advised that Complainant would be subject to the
Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings before the Office of
Administrative Law Judges (“Rules of Procedure”). 29 C.F.R. Part 18, Subpart A.
More specifically, the Court stated:
Self-represented litigants are “afforded certain latitudes”; however, they
are “not excused from the rules of practice and procedure applicable to
th[e] proceedings merely because of his [or her] pro se status.” Jeanty v.
Lily Transp. Corp., ARB No. 19-00005, ALJ No. 2018-STA-00013, slip
op. at 12 (ARB May 13, 2020).

[2]
In its Hearing Order, the Court also stated:
12. Artificial Intelligence (“AI”). If any attorney for a party, or a pro
se party, has used AI in the preparation of any complaint, answer,
motion, brief, or other paper filed with OALJ and assigned to the
undersigned, they MUST, in a clear and plain factual statement,
disclose that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing
and CERTIFY that each and every citation to the law, or the record, in
the paper has been verified as accurate by an attorney, pro se party, or
lay representative.
Upon being advised that Complainant had violated the Court’s order for a
second time, the Court undertook its own review of Complainant’s pleading and
citations and confirmed that certain authorities cited therein could not be verified. A
Procedural Order was issued on September 24, 2026, requiring Complainant to show
cause why he should not be sanctioned for signing and filing a false Artificial
Intelligence Disclosure and Certification with his Motion for Partial Summary
Decision. Complainant responded the same day admitting he made “mistakes” in
checking his submissions and accepting responsibility for his actions. While this is
appreciated, Complainant also made such representations the first time the Court’s
requirements were violated. Once is a mistake. Twice is the beginning of a pattern
and not as easily dismissed.
The Court finds Complainant should be sanctioned for his behavior this time
with more than a simple admonishment. Respondent and the Court have had to
expend time and resources because of Complainant’s “mistakes.” Time, especially
once spent can never be recovered. As a sanction, the Court will strike Complainant’s
motion in its entirety. Further, Complainant will be prohibited from filing any
additional motions for partial or full summary decision.
Moreover, the parties have each previously filed motions for summary decision
in this matter which have been denied due to genuine issues of material fact. See
Hearing Order issued July 6, 2026. Had the Court not stricken Complainant’s motion,
it would have once again been denied for the same reasons.

[3]
For the foregoing reasons, Complainant’s motion is DENIED and as a sanction
is considered stricken.1 Complainant is also hereby prohibited from filing any further
motions for summary decision, in full or part, or from seeking to strike any of
Respondent’s counter-allegations or defenses.
This matter is best decided on the merits after full hearing and presentation
of evidence. The formal hearing in this matter remains scheduled to be conducted on
November 17-18, 2026, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Central Time.
SO ORDERED.
DAN C. PANAGIOTIS
UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
1 Technically because of electronic filing the motion cannot be physically stricken from the record.
Notwithstanding its digital existence, the Court will not consider the motion any further.