Alpha Services v. Thomas Perez, 681 F. App'x 584

Alpha Services, a forestry employer, attached trailers to crew-carrier pickup trucks and was fined by the Department of Labor for violating 29 C.F.R. § 500.105(b)(2)(ix).
The Department’s Administrative Review Board held Alpha’s crew-carrier pickups were “trucks,” not “buses,” and sustained the fine.
Alpha filed a document titled “complaint” in district court within 30 days of the Board decision; the district court found it a timely appeal and exercised jurisdiction.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, deferring to the Board’s interpretation under administrative deference principles.
Alpha challenged both the Board’s construction of the regulation and the regulation’s applicability to forestry employers; the district court and this panel affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Jurisdiction	Alpha argued its filing was a timely appeal despite being titled a “complaint.”	Secretary implied the filing was not a proper timely notice of appeal.	Filing was timely; district court had jurisdiction.
Proper interpretation of “truck” vs “bus” under §500.105	Alpha argued the vehicles should be treated as "buses" for the regulation’s purposes.	Secretary/Board argued vehicle classification depends on original design; these were trucks.	Court upheld Board’s interpretation as persuasive under Skidmore factors.
Level of deference to Board’s interpretation	Alpha challenged Board’s interpretation and standard of deference.	Secretary argued Board’s interpretation is entitled to deference (Skidmore/Auer).	Court applied Skidmore and found Board’s reasoning thorough and persuasive; deference appropriate.
Applicability of MSPA/regulation to forestry employers	Alpha contended §500.105(b)(2)(ix) shouldn’t apply to commercial forestry.	Secretary argued MSPA and implementing regs apply to forestry employers.	Argument waived below; even on merits, prior circuit precedent and statutory reading support application to forestry.

Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (factors for weight of agency interpretations)
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (agency interpretations’ weight depends on circumstances)
Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 (2001) (formalities in notice pleadings should not defeat appeals when intent is clear)
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) (no notice-and-comment required for agency reinterpretation of its own rule)
Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987) (Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act applies to forestry workers)