Jack Jordan v. U.S. Department of Labor, No. 20-3402 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Petitions for Review - U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board. The Board's decisions were not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, and the petitions for review are denied without further comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3402 ___________________________ Jack R. T. Jordan lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. U.S. Department of Labor lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent Dyncorp International, L.L.C. lllllllllllllllllllllInterested party - Intervenor ___________________________ No. 20-3404 ___________________________ Jack R. T. Jordan lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. U.S. Department of Labor lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent Dyncorp International, L.L.C. lllllllllllllllllllllInterested party - Intervenor ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Labor (except OSHA) ____________ Submitted: November 2, 2021 Filed: November 5, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated cases, Jack Jordan petitions for review of final orders from the United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB). After careful review, we conclude the ARB’s decisions were not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to the law, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. See 49 U.S.C. § 31105(d) (appellate court reviews ARB’s decision pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency decision found to be arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, or if unsupported by substantial evidence in record). Accordingly, we deny Jordan’s petition in each case. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
