Order ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED ASSIGNMENT OF PRESIDING JUDGE — 2026SOX00079

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
Washington, DC
______________
Issue Date: 15 October 2026
OALJ Case No.: 2026-SOX-00079
OSHA Case No.: 301085143
In the Matter of:
SUDESH LOHIA,
Complainant,
v.
THE MIDDLEBY CORPORATION,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED
ASSIGNMENT OF PRESIDING JUDGE
On or about August 18, 2026, Complainant filed a complaint with the
Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
alleging Respondent violated the employee protection provisions of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, and the implementing regulations at 29
C.F.R. Part 1980. By letter dated September 1, 2026, OSHA dismissed the
complaint. Complainant, representing himself, objected to the dismissal and
requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (“OALJ”),
which docketed the case on September 3, 2026.
On October 13, 2026, Complainant emailed an OALJ staff member
requesting the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) designate a presiding ALJ
under 29 C.F.R. § 18.12(a). As a basis for his request, Complainant alleges “serious
financial hardship.” Complainant asserts that he has been unemployed and without
a regular source of income since Respondent terminated his employment. Claimant
also asserts that the prolonged uncertainty about the case has caused considerable
financial hardship and distress for him and his family. Complainant also states
that, while he has served his initial disclosures, Respondent has not and has not
registered as a party to receive electronic filings.

- 2 -
Under the SOX regulations, upon receipt of an objection and request for
hearing, the Chief ALJ has the responsibility to promptly assign the case to an ALJ.
29 C.F.R. § 1980.107(b). The regulations do not further define “promptly.”
Additionally, the United States Code provides that “[a]dministrative law judges
shall be assigned to cases in rotation so far as practicable . . ..” 5 U.S.C. § 3105.
OALJ is in compliance with the applicable statute and regulation.
Under OALJ’s general rules of practice and procedure, “[a] party may move to
expedite the proceeding. The motion must demonstrate the specific harm that
would result if the proceeding is not expedited.” 29 C.F.R. § 18.42. General
economic or financial hardship that comes with the loss of a job is generally not the
type of specific severe and immediate harm contemplated by the OALJ rules that
would entitle a complainant to jump the assignment queue. In other words, it is not
clear how Complainant’s situation is significantly different from the numerous
other whistleblower complainants whose cases are also pending assignment to a
presiding ALJ.
As to any issues related to party representation, initial disclosures, discovery,
and service of documents, they are best left for the presiding ALJ to address, if
necessary.
Accordingly, Complainant’s request to expedite the assignment of a presiding
judge is DENIED. As directed in the Notice of Docketing issued on September 15,
2026, the parties shall defer filing any additional documents or motions until a
presiding ALJ is assigned.1
SO ORDERED:
STEPHEN R. HENLEY
Chief Administrative Law Judge
1 Given current OALJ staffing levels and caseloads, a presiding judge should be assigned in January
2027.