Case ID: f-appx_92/html/0385-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gene K. CHAPMAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, HEARTLAND EXPRESS OF IOWA, Respondent-Intervenor on Appeal.
    No. 03-3604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 23, 2004.
    Decided: April 1, 2004.
    Paul O. Taylor, Trucker’s Justice Center, Burnsville, MN, for Petitioner.
    Allen H. Feldman, Ann Rosenthal, Howard M. Radzely, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Solicitor, Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor, M. Cynthia Douglass, Jane Dunlop, U.S. Department of Labor, Administrative Review Board, Michelle Yau, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Douglas R. Richmond, Aon Risk Services, Chicago, IL, for Respondent.
    Michael L. Matula, Armstrong & Teasdale, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent Intervenor.
    Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Gene Chapman, a former employee driver of Heartland Express of Iowa, appeals from the final order of the United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board, which adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that Heartland did not discriminate in violation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) when it terminated Chapman’s employment.

We have reviewed the record before us, the parties’ submissions on appeal, as well as the applicable law and we conclude that the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Simon v. Simmons Foods, Inc., 49 F.3d 386, 389 (8th Cir.1995) (“Our review of the Secretary’s order is controlled by the Administrative Procedure Act under which an agency decision will be set aside if it is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”). Because we have nothing to add to the analysis already conducted, we affirm without additional discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.