# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 30 04

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mav eri ck Tran sp or ta ti on , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

U.S. Depa rtment o f Lab or , Adm in is tra ti ve Rev ie w Boa rd

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

Alb ert Bri an Can te r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l In te rv en or

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Depa rtment o f Lab or (ex cep t OSHA)

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 13 , 20 13
Fil ed : J an ua ry

16 , 20 14 (Co rrec te d J an ua ry 17 , 20 14 )

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

An Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e fo un d Mav eri ck Tran s po rta ti on , LLC
(Ma ve ric k)

, li ab le f

o r t a k i ng ret al ia to ry act io n ag ai ns t Alb ert Bri an Can te r invi ol at io n of th e Su rfac e Tran sp or ta ti on Ass is ta nc e Act (STAA), 49 U.S.C. § 31 10 5.

The Dep art m en t of Lab or Adm in is tra ti ve Rev ie w Bo ard (ARB) affi rm ed

. Mav eri ck

no w pet it io ns for rev ie w, whi ch we de ny.

I

I n earl y Octo be r of 20 03

, Mav eri ck hi red Can te r as a co m m erci al v e h i c l e
dr iv er. On Nov em

be r 21

, 20 03

, whi le dr iv in g a t r a c t o r

- t r ai le r carr y in g a lo ad fo r

Mav eri ck

, Can te r was in vo lv ed in an acci de nt in Pen ns y lv an ia whi ch res ul te d in th e
de at h of a m ot or is t. The Pen ns y lv an ia St at e Po li ce pl aced th e tru ck Can te r ha d be en
dr iv in g ou t of se rv ic e whi le th ey in ve st ig at ed th e acci de nt

. Dur in g th e po st -acc id en t

in sp ect io n, a st at e tro op er fo un d th e t r u c k ha d de fect s in vi ol at io n of a nu m be r of

fed eral sa fet y reg ul at io ns

. The de fect s in cl ud ed br ak es ou t of ad jus tm en t, a flu id le ak

in th e p owe r st eeri ng bo x, a c ha ffi ng bra ke ho se , and im pr op erl y sec ur ed du nn ag e.

The tro op er to ld Can te r th e tru ck wou ld be rel eas ed

, pr ov id ed th e br ak es were

a dju st ed im m ed ia te ly an d Mav eri ck as su red hi m th e ot he r vi ol at io ns wou l d b e

co rre c t e d

. Can te r in fo rm ed Mav eri ck ab ou t th e de fect s an d th e co nd it io ns fo r th e

tru ck ’s rel eas e. Can te r co rrec te d th e du nn ag e de fect hi m se lf an d Mav eri ck arra ng ed

to ha ve th e tr uc k’s b rak es ad jus te d t he fol lo win g d ay

. Can te r th en cal le d Mav eri ck

to in fo rm i t t w o de fect s rem ai ne d un co rrec te d. Mav eri ck ’s fle et m an ag er, Ro be rt

Ro be rs on , t ol d Can te r th e lo cal la w e nf or cem en t of

fic ia ls ha d a u t h o r i z ed Can te r to

dr ive the tru ck to Can te r’s ho m e, pr ov id ed th e rem ai ni ng de fect s were co rrec te d th ere

.

Can te r dr ov e t h e t r uc k ap pr ox im at el y ei gh ty m il es to a tru ck st op ne ar hi s
ho m e. The re, on Mav eri c k ’s in st ru ct io ns , he dr op pe d of f th e tra il er co nt ai ni ng th e
lo ad he ha d b een carr y in g. Ma ve ric k d is pa tc he d a no th er d riv er t o p ic k u p C an te r’s

lo ad bu t d id no t ar ran ge for th e rem ai ni ng de fect s in th e tru ck to be co rrec te d a t t he

tru ck st op . Can te r th en dro ve th e tr uc k a no th er n in e m il es to hi s h om e.

-2

-As a res ul t of th e acci de nt

, Can te r ex pe rie nc ed de pr es si on

. Mav eri ck req ui red

Can te r to ta ke a m on th -lo ng m ed ic al le av e. Mav eri ck di d no t arra ng e to ha ve th e

tru ck ’s de fect s co rrec te d whi le Can te r was on m ed ic al le av e. On Decem be r 29

, 20 03

, Can te r was cle ared to ret ur n t o wo rk . He cho se to res ig n i ns te ad

.

W he n Can te r cal le d to in fo r m M a ve ric k of hi s res ig na ti on , he sp ok e to

Ro be rs on

. Ro be rs on as ke d Can te r to dr iv e th e tru ck an ad di ti on al 20 0 to 25 0 m il es

to Mav eri ck ’s y ard to ret ur n it

. Can te r refu se d to do so un le ss Mav eri ck fir st fix ed

th e r e mai n i ng de fect s an d ag reed to pr ov id e hi m wit h tra ns po rta ti on ho m e. Can te r

t o l d Ro be rs on th e tru ck ha d “ to o m an y de ad li ne pr ob le m s,” an d th e un co rrec te d

de fect s wit h th e tru ck were in vi ol at io n of fed eral sa fet y reg ul at io ns

. Can te r th en le ft

th e tru ck wit h th e un co rrec te d def ect s at th e tru ck st op whe re he ha d le ft it s tra il er a

m on th earl ie r, whi ch he ha d a ut ho rit y to do

, an d in fo rm ed Mav eri ck of it s l oc at io n.

A fte r Can te r res ig ne d, Ro be rs on pr ep ared an in te rn al m em o to su b mi t t o

Mav eri ck ’s Reh iri ng Co m m it te e, in whi ch Ro be rs on in di cat ed Can te r ha d refu se d to

dr iv e th e tru ck be cau se it ha d “ to o m an y de ad li ne pr ob le m s.” Ro be rs on al so ta lk ed

wit h Mav eri ck of

fic ia ls ab ou t pl aci ng an ab an do nm en t no ta ti on in Can te r’s Driv e-ACh eck (DAC) repo rt. An aban do nm en t no ta ti on ha s a ne ga ti ve effe ct on a dr iv er’s

1

ab il it y to be hi red an d so m e em pl o ye r s r e f

us e to hi re dr iv ers who ha ve an
ab an do nm en t no ta ti on in th ei r DAC rep or t. The Reh iri ng Co m m it te e ul ti m at el y pl aced an ab an do nm en t no ta ti on in Can te r’s DAC rep or t be cau se Can te r ha d refu se d

to dri ve th e tr

uc k t o M av eri ck ’s y ard

.

Can te r se cu red em

pl oym en t on e m o n t h a f

t er res ig ni ng fro m Mav eri ck an d

wor ke d fo r fiv e di ffer en t tru ck in g co m pa ni es be twee n 20 04 an d 20 08

. Afte r Apr il

A Driv e-A-C he c k rep or t is a co ns um er rep or t de sc rib in g a tru ck dr iv er’s 1

em pl oym en t hi st or y

. Po te nt ia l em pl oyers can acce ss th e rep or t whe n m ak in g hi rin g de ci si on s.

-3

-20 08

, Can te r be ga n ex pe rie nc in g di ffi cu lt y fin di ng wor k. So m et im e on or aft er Ju ne

1, 20 08

, a recr ui te r to ld Can te r in fo rm at io n in hi s DAC rep or t ha d pr ev en te d Can te r

fro m be in g hi red

. Can te r req ue s te d th e rep or t an d rece iv ed it th irt y da y s la te r,

so m et im e in Ju ly or Aug us t of 20 08

. Thi s was th e fir st ti m e Can te r ha d se en hi s DAC

rep or t o r th e ab an do nm en t n ot at io n.

Can te r’s fin al tru ck in g job was wit h DSCO, In c. (DSCO). He be ga n wor ki ng

fo r DSCO in Ju ly 20 08 an d res ig n e d in Sep te m be r 20 08 whe n DSCO req ue st ed he

vi ol at e fed eral ho ur -o f-s erv ic e reg ul at io ns

. Can te r su bs eq ue nt ly so ug ht em pl oym en t

wit h K&B Tran sp or ta ti on (K&B)

. Can te r m et al l of K&B’s hi rin g req ui rem en ts

, bu t

K&B refu se d to hi re hi m be cau se of th e ab an do nm en t no ta t i o n i n h i s DAC rep or t.

Can te r’s in ab il it y to fin d wor k ne ga ti ve ly affe ct ed hi s m en ta l st at e. He lo st hi s ho m e,
be cam e de pr es se d, su ffer ed a lo ss of ap pe t i t e , a n d ex pe rie nc ed su ic id al th ou gh ts

. Can te r ev en tu al ly fou nd work as a pro du ce cl erk

.

On Decem

be r 16

, 20 08

, Can te r fil ed a STAA co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Mav eri ck wit h

th e Occu pa ti on al Safe ty an d Heal th Adm in is tra ti on (OSHA) al le gi ng re t a li at io n.

OSHA’ s in ve st ig at io n co nc lu de d th e co mp l a i n t la ck ed m eri t, an d Can te r so ug ht

rev ie w by an Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (ALJ)

.

Befo re th e ALJ, Mav eri ck arg ue d Can te r ha d no t ti m el y fil ed hi s STAA cl ai m , whi ch it al so arg ue d f

ai le d on th e m eri ts

. In it s reco m m en de d de ci si on , th e ALJ

co nc lu de d th e cl ai m was ti m el y

. Rel y in g on ARB pr eced en t in te rp ret in g th e STAA

li m it at io ns pe rio d to be gi n to ru n whe n th e em pl oyee rece iv es de fin it iv e no ti ce of an
ad ve rs e act io n, th e ALJ fo un d Can te r ha d fil ed hi s cl ai m wit hi n 18 0 da y s of rece iv in g
de fin it iv e no ti ce of th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on

. The ALJ al so co nc lu de d Mav eri ck

ha d un la wfu ll y ret al ia te d ag ai ns t Can te r. The ALJ reas on ed Can te r’s refu sa l to dr iv e

t h e tru ck was pr ot ect ed by th e STAA be cau se th e tru ck st il l ha d de fect s whi c h

vi ol at ed fed eral reg ul at io ns , an d of wh ic h M av eri ck was a ware. Th e ALJ re as on ed

in th e al te rn at iv e Can te r ha d a reas on ab le fear of da ng er be cau se of th e tru ck ’s un sa fe

-4

-co nd it io n. Th e A LJ fu rth er fo un d th e refu sa l ha d m ot iv at ed Mav eri ck to pl ace th e

ab an do nm en t no ta ti on in Can te r’s DAC rep or t, whi ch th e A LJ c o n c l ud ed was an
ad ve rs e act io n. Ult im at el y , th e ALJ reco m m en de d award in g Can te r ba ck pa y ,

co m pe ns at or y da m ag es fo r em ot io na l di st res s, an d ot he r rel ie f no t cu rren tl y at is su e.

Mav eri ck so ug ht rev ie w by th e ARB.

The ARB co nc lu de d th e ALJ’s fin di ng s ha d al l be en su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce an d affi rm ed th e ALJ’s co nc lu si on Can te r’s cl ai m was t im el y . Th e ARB,

ho wev er, no te d su a sp on te t h e A LJ h a d erre d in ap pl y in g th e st an da rd un de r th e

STAA as it ha d ex is te d pr io r to be in g am en de d in 20 07

, in ru li ng on Can te r’s cl ai m

. Rev ie win g Can te r’s S TA A cl ai m de no vo un de r th e po st -2 00 7 st an da rd

, th e ARB

co nc lu de d Can te r ha d pr ev ai le d on hi s ret al ia ti on cl ai m

. Fi na ll y , th e ARB affi rm ed 2

th e d am ag e award s as su pp or te d b y su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.

Mav eri ck no w pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w. In it s pe ti ti on , Mav eri ck arg ue s th e ARB

erre d in (1 ) co nc lu di ng Can te r’s co mp la in t was ti m el y , (2 ) co nc lu di ng Can te r ha d

pr ov en hi s ret al ia ti on cl ai m , an d (3 ) affi rm in g th e da m ag es as award ed by th e ALJ. 3

In 20 07

, Co ng res s am en de d th e STAA to req ui re a sh ow i n g t h at pr ot ect ed 2

act iv it y ha d b een a “ co nt rib ut in g fa ct or ” in th e em pl oyer’s d eci si on to tak e ad ve rs e
act io n ag ai ns t th e em

pl oyee. 49 U.S.C. § 42 12 1( b) (2 )(B) (i)

. The 20 07 am en dm en ts im po se a lo wer bu rd en on th e em pl oyee th an ex is te d pr ev io us ly, whe n th e em pl oyee

was req ui red to sh ow th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y ha d “ m ot iv at ed ” th e ad ve rs e act io n. See

Fo rm el la v. U.S. De p’t of Lab or , 6 28 F.3 d 38 1, 38 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (d is cu ss in g th e effe ct of t he 20 07 am en dm en ts to th e STAA).

Befo re th is co ur t, Mav eri ck arg ue s fo r th e fir st ti m e th e ALJ erre d in (1 ) us in g 3

th e pr e-2 00 7 STAA st an da rd ; an d, m or e sp eci fic al ly, (2 ) no t req ui rin g Can te r to

pr ov e th e refu sa l ha d be en a “ co nt rib ut in g fact or ” un de r th e po st -2 00 7 st an da rd

. W e do no t con si de r th os e is su es

. See Etch u- Njang v. Gon zal es , 40 3 F.3d 57 7, 58 3 (8t h
Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ [T]here is a b a si c pr in ci pl e of ad m in is tra ti ve la w th at ‘[o]rdi na ril y an
ap pe ll at e co ur t do es no t gi ve co ns id erat io n to is s u e s n o t rai se d be lo w.’ ” (q uo ti ng Hor m el v. Hel ve rin g, 3 12 U.S. 55 2, 5 56 (19 41 ))).

-5

-II

W e rev ie w th e ARB’s de ci si on un de r th e de fere nt ia l st an da rd art ic ul at ed in th e
Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur e Act, 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2)

. 49 U.S.C. § 31 10 5( d)

. Und er th is

st an da rd we m

us t affi rm th e ARB’s co nc lu si on s of la w un le ss th e sa m e are arb it rary,

cap ric io us , an ab us e of di sc ret io n, or ot he rwis e co nt rary to la w. 5 U.S.C.
§ 70 6( 2) (A). W e m

us t al so acce pt th e ag en cy ’s fact ua l fin di ng s if th ey are su pp or te d
by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2) (E). “ Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce is rel ev an t

ev id en ce th at a reas on ab le m in d wou ld acce pt as ad eq ua te to su pp or t th e [ag en cy ’s]

co nc lu si on .” S t e e d v

. Ast ru e, 52 4 F.3 d 87 2, 87 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng You ng v. Apf el

, 22 1 F.3d 10 65

, 10 68 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )). As lon g as the ARB corre ct ly ap pl ie d

th e la w an d th e ALJ’s “ fact ua l fin di ng s are su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e

reco rd co ns id ered as a who le ” we wil l affi rm t h e ARB’s de ci si on “ ev en th ou gh we

m ig ht ha ve reac he d a di ffer en t de ci si on ha d th e m at te r be e n b e f o r e us de no vo .”

W il so n Tr o p h y Co

. v. N.L.R.B., 98 9 F.2 d 15 02

, 15 07 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

.

III

Mav eri ck fir st co nt en ds th e ARB’s co nc lu si on Can te r’s cl ai m was ti m el y was

co nt rary to la w. Mav eri ck arg ue s th e STAA li m it at io ns pe rio d be ga n to ru n whe n it
pl aced th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on in Can te r’s DAC rep or t in 20 04

, an d Can te r di d no t

fil e hi s cl ai m un ti l Decem be r 16 , 2 00 8. Und er th e S TA A

, a d r i v e r ha s 18 0 da y s to

fil e a STAA cl ai m fro m th e da te an al le ge d vi ol at io n oc cu rred

. 49 U.S.C.
§ 31 10 5( b) (1 ). Th e ARB, ho wev er, ha s in te rp ret ed th e STAA to in co rp or at e an

ex cep ti on to th e g en eral ba ck gr ou nd rul e o f acc ru al th at a cl ai m accr ue s at th e ti m e

of in jury. See Osb or n v. Uni te d St at es , 91 8 F.2 d 72 4, 73 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (d es cri bi ng

th e ge ne ral ru le ). Thi s ex cep ti on is a ve rs io n of th e di sc ov ery accr ua l ru le of fed eral

co m m on la w, su ch t h a t t he li m it at io ns pe rio d be gi ns to ru n whe n th e em pl oyee

rece iv es no ti ce of th e ad ve rs e a c t i o n t a k e n by th e em pl oyer. See Eub an ks v. A.M.

-6

-Exp res s, In c., ARB No. 08 -1 38

, 4 (ARB Sep t. 24

, 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th e em pl oyee ha d

18 0 da y s to fil e a cl ai m fro m th e da te th e em pl oyee rece iv ed fin al

, de f in it iv e, an d

un eq ui vo cal no ti ce of an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n)

. Mav eri ck as se rts th e ARB’s

in te rp ret at io n i s i nv al id

.

In rev ie win g th e Dep art m en t o f Lab or ’s in te rp ret at io n of a st at ut e it

ad m in is te rs , we a s k t w o q u es ti on s. Fi rs t, we as k “ whe th er Co ng res s ha s di rect ly

sp ok en to th e pr eci se qu es ti on at is su e.” Ch ev ro n, U.S.A.

, In c. v. Natu ral Res

. Def.

Co un ci l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 83 7, 84 2 (1 98 4)

. “ If

. . . Co ng res s ha s no t di rect ly ad dr es se d

th e p reci se qu es ti on at is su e, th e co ur t do es no t sim pl y im po se it s o wn co ns tru ct io n

on th e st at ut e, as wou ld be ne ces sa ry in th e ab se nc e of an ad m in is tra ti ve

in te rp ret at io n.” Id

. at 84 2- 43

. In st ead

, we as k “ whe th er th e ag en cy ’s [in te rp ret at io n]

is ba se d o n a pe rm is si bl e co ns tru ct io n o f th e st at ut e.” Id . at 8 43

.

Mav eri ck di rect s o ur att en ti on to no th in g whi ch in di cat es Co ng res s i nt en de d

to ex cl ud e a ve rs io n of th e ge ne ral di sc ov ery accr ua l ru le fro m th e STAA. As we fin d

no in di cat io n Co ng res s in te nd ed to ex cl ud e a ve rs io n of th e ge ne ral di sc ov ery accr ua l

ru le fro m th e STAA, we fin d no th in g im pe rm is si bl e in th e a g e n c y in te rp ret in g th e

STAA to in co rp or at e it ’s ve rs io n of the ru le

. See Com cas t of Ill. X v. Mul ti -Vis io n
Elec

., In c., 49 1 F.3 d 93 8, 94 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ In fed eral qu es ti on cas es , th e
di sc ov ery ru le ap pl ie s in th e ab se nc e of a co nt rary di rect iv e fro m Co ng res s.”)
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

The di ss en t arg ue s Ch ev ro n de fere nc e is in ap pr op ria te he re. The di ss en t fir st

as se rts th e Su pr em e Co ur t in TRW In c. v. And rews , 53 4 U.S. 19

, 27 (2 00 1)

, ex pr es sl y
refu se d to ap pr ov e th e pr eced en t of Co m cas t. The di ss en t, ho wev er, m is read s TRW

. In TRW

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t co ns id ered a Nin th Ci rcu it pr eced en t w h ic h was , ad m it te dl y , ver y

si m il ar t o t he on e se t fort h in Co m cas t. Bo th pre ced en ts he ld th at

, ab se nt so m e co nt rary di rect iv e fro m Co ng res s, we in co rp or at e th e ge ne ral di sc ov ery

accr ua l ru le in to fed eral st at ut es

. See TRW, 5 34 U.S. a t 27 ; se e al so Co m cas t, 49 1

-7

-F.3 d at 94 4. Reg ard in g th is co m m on ho ld in g, th e Co ur t m erel y n o t e d i t ha d no t

ad op te d th e po si ti on as it s own

. TRW

, 53 4 U.S. at 27

. Th e Nin th Ci rcu it ’s

pr eced en t, ho wev er, ex ceed ed th e co mm on ho ld in g by re qu iri ng Co ng res s to m ak e

th e co nt rary di rect iv e an ex pr es s on e. See id

. It was thi s requ ire m en t of an exp res s

in di cat io n o f in te nt to ex cl ud e th e di sc ov ery accr ua l rul e whi ch th e Co ur t ex pr es sl y
refu se d to en do rs e. See id

. (“ And

, be y on d do ub t, we ha ve ne ve r en do rs ed th e Nin th

Ci rcu it 's vi ew th at Co ng res s can co nv ey it s refu sa l to ad op t a di sc ov ery ru le on ly by

ex pl ic it co m

m an d[ .] ”). Th e S u pr em e Co ur t di d no t in TRW in va li da te th e

pr es u mp t i on of read in g th e di sc ov ery accr ua l ru le in to fed eral st at ut es

. See id

. (n ot i n g TR W di d no t req ui re th e co ur t to de ci de th e ex te nt of th e pr es um pt io n)

. Bec au se it di d n ot , Com cas t re m ai ns go od law.

The di ss en t nex t tak es is su e be cau se th e ARB’s vers io n o f th e d is co ve ry rul e
di ffer s fro m th e co m

m on law d is co ve ry

accr ua l ru le we wou ld be req ui red to ap pl y

were we to in te rp ret th e STAA in th e a bs en ce of th e ARB’s de ci si on

. The ARB’s

ve rs io n of th e di sc ov ery accr ua l ru le ho ld s a vi ol at io n of th e STAA accr ue s whe n th e
vi ct im rece iv es de fin it iv e no ti ce of th e in jury, whe reas th e ge ne ral di sc ov ery accr ua l

ru le wou ld ho ld accr ua l to oc cu r up on di sc ov ery of th e in jury or whe n th e vi ct im wit h

du e di li ge nc e sh ou ld ha ve di sc ov ered th e in jury. See TRW

, 53 4 U.S. at 30 ; Co m cas t,

49 1 F.3 d at 94 4. The qu es ti on th en , is whe th er th e ARB, ha vi ng de ci de d to in te rp ret

th e STAA to in cl ud e an ex cep ti on to th e g en eral ba ck gr ou nd rul e o f accr ua l th at an

in jury accr ue s at th e ti m e it oc cu rs , can ad op t an ex cep ti on di ffer en t fro m th at wid el y

acce pt ed un de r th e co m

m on la w. W e co nc lu de it can

. In do in g s o, we ar e m in df ul

th at whe re, as he re, Co ng res s is si le nt on th e pr eci se is su e in qu es ti on an d th e ag en cy

ha s sp ok en , it is no t fo r th e co ur t to im po se it s own c o n s t r u c t i o n of a st at ut e.
Ch ev ro n, 46 7 U.S. at 84 2- 43

. Rat he r we are to a s k w h e t h e r th e ag en cy ’s

in te rp ret at io n is a pe rm is si bl e on e. Id

. at 84 3. Unl ik e th e di ss en t, we do no t be li ev e

th e ARB in co rp or at in g it s ve rs io n of th e di sc ov ery ru le in to th e STAA wou ld

effe ct iv el y read ou t th e STAA’ s st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. Acco rd in gl y , we do no t fi nd

th e ARB’s in te rp ret at io n to be an im pe rm is si bl e on e, ev en th ou gh it di ffer s fro m th e

-8

-ru le we wou ld be req ui red to read in to th e st at ut e if we were to in te rp ret it in th e fir st

in st an ce.

Thu s, un de r Ch ev ro n we de fer to th e ag en cy ’s in te rp ret at io n th at the lim ita ti on s

pe rio d in th e STAA be gi n s t o r un whe n th e em pl oyee rece iv es no ti ce of th e

em pl oyer’s a d v e r s e act io n. W e al so ag ree wit h th e ARB th at th e ALJ’s fin di ng

Can te r rece iv ed s u c h n o t i c e wit hi n 18 0 da y s of fil in g hi s cl ai m was su pp or te d by

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Acco rd in gl y , th e ARB’s de te rm in at io n Can te r ti m el y fil ed hi s
cl ai m was n ot co nt rary to l aw.

IV

Mav eri ck ne xt ch al le ng es th e ARB’s de te rm in at io n C a n t e r p rev ai le d on hi s

ret al ia ti on cl ai m

. Mav eri ck ’s ch al le ng e is two -p ro ng ed

. It arg ue s th e ALJ’s fin di ng s

are un su pp or te d by su bs t a n t i a l e v id en ce. Mav eri ck al so arg ue s two of th e ARB’s 4

le ga l co nc lu si on s s up po rti ng th e d et erm in at io n a re co nt rary to l aw.

A ret al ia ti on cla im

ba se d o n a refu sa l to dr iv e un de r th e STAA is co ns id ered

un de r a bu rd en -s hi fti ng an al y si s. See 4 9 U.S.C. § 31 10 5( a)(2 )(b ) (req ui rin g STAA

co m pl a i nt s to be de te rm in ed un de r th e st an da rd se t fo rth in 49 U.S.C.
§ 42 12 1( b) (2 )(B) ). A co m pl ai na nt m

us t fi rs t p ro ve a pr im a fac ie cas e of ret al ia ti on by sh owi ng (1 ) th e refu sa l to dr iv e was pr ot ect ed un de r th e STAA; (2 ) th e em pl oyer

kn ew of th e pr ot ect ed co nd uc t; (3 ) th e em pl oyer to ok an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n

ag ai ns t th e co m

pl ai na nt ; and (4 ) th e refu sa l to dr iv e was a co nt rib ut in g fact or in th e

em pl oyer’s de ci si on to t a k e t he ad ve rs e act io n. 49 U.S.C. §§ 31 10 5( a)(1 )(B)

, 42 12 1( b) (2 )(B) (i)

. Onc e a co m pl ai na nt su ffi ci en tl y al le ge s a pr im a faci e cas e, th e

Mav eri ck al so arg ue s th e ALJ he ld Can te r on ly to a bu rd en of pr od uc ti on an d 4

no t a bu rd en of pe rs ua si on wit h reg ard to th e fact s. W e f i n d th is co nt en ti on to be
wit ho ut m eri t.

-9

-e mp l o y er m ay reb ut th e em pl oyee’s ev id en ce by sh owi ng by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng

ev id en ce it wou ld ha ve ta ke n th e sa m e act io n in th e ab se nc e of th e refu sa l. 49 U.S.C.
§ 3 11 05 (a)( 1) (B)( ii ).

A. Neces sa ry Fin di ng s o f Fac t

Mav eri ck ’s arg um en ts ab ou t th e fin di ng s of fact am ou nt to as se rti on s th e ALJ

sh ou ld ha ve fo un d th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng M av eri ck ’s cas e as m or e co m pe ll in g.

Mav eri ck m is ta ke s th e na tu re of ou r rev ie w, whi ch is to de te r mi n e w h e t he r th e

ag en cy ’s fin di n g s w e re su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, no t whe th er su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce su pp or ts a co nt rary fin di ng

. See W arb ur to n v. Apf el

, 18 8 F.3 d 10 47

, 10 50
(8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ W e m ay no t rev ers e th e [ag en cy ’s] de ci si on m erel y be cau se

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts a co nt rary out co m e.”).

Afte r a rev ie w of th e reco rd as a who le

, we co nc lu de al l of th e fact s fo un d by

th e A LJ

, in cl ud in g th os e pe rta in in g to th e ret al ia ti on cl ai m , were su pp or te d by

su bs ta nt ia l evi de nc e. The pe rti ne nt fin di ng s in cl ud e: (1 ) th e tru ck ha d un co rrec te d

de fect s, (2 ) Mav eri ck kn ew ab ou t th e d e f e c ts an d th at th e de fect s vi ol at ed fed eral

sa fet y reg ul at io ns , ( 3 ) Can te r as ke d Mav eri ck to fix th e de fect s, (4 ) Can te r refu se d

to dr iv e th e tru ck be ca u s e t h e de fect s rem ai ne d un co rrec te d, (5 ) Can te r’s refu sa l

m ot iv at ed Mav eri ck t o pl ace th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on in Can te r’s DAC rep or t,

de sp it e be in g aware th e de fect s rem ai ne d un co rrec te d, an d (6 ) it is li ke ly K&B wou ld 5

ha ve hi red Can te r ha d Mav eri ck no t pl aced th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on i n h i s D A C

rep or t.

Lik e th e ARB, we co ns id er th e ALJ’s fin di ng un de r th e pr e-2 00 7 st an da rd th at

5

Can te r’s refu sa l m ot iv at ed Mav eri ck to pl ace th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on in Can te r’s
DAC rep or t, su ffi ci en t to pr ov e un de r th e p os t-2 00 7 st an da rd th at th e refu sa l ha d
be en a co nt rib ut in g fa ct or to Mav eri ck ’s dec is io n t o d o s o.

-1 0-B. Neces sa ry Lega l Co nc lu si on s

Mav eri ck ch al le ng es a s co nt rary to la w th e ARB’s le ga l co nc lu si on s th at

Can te r’s refu sa l was pr ot ect ed act iv it y , an d th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on was an ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t ac ti on

.

Pro te ct ed Acti vi ty. The ARB co nc lu de d Can te r’s refu sa l to dr iv e th e tru ck was

pr ot ect ed by th e STAA be cau se th e tru ck ’s unc orrect ed de fect s vi ol at ed fed eral sa fet y

reg ul at io ns

. In pe rti ne nt p art

, th e STAA pr oh ib it s an em pl oyer fro m ta ki ng an
ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n ag ai ns t an em pl oyee who refu se s to op erat e a ve hi cl e
be cau se op erat io n “ vi ol at es a reg ul at io n

. . . of th e Un it ed St at es rel at ed to

co m m erci al m ot or ve hi cl e sa fet y [.]” 49 U.S.C. § 31 10 5( a)(1 )(B) (i)

. At t h e t i me

Can te r refu se d to dr iv e th e tru ck

, th e flu i d l e a k i n th e po wer st eeri ng bo x an d th e
ch affi ng br ak e ho se rem ai ne d un co rrec te d. Driv ing th e tru ck wit h ei th er de fect wou ld

vi ol at e fed eral sa fet y reg ul at io ns

. See 49 C.F.R. § 39 3.1 (c) (p ro hi bi ti ng th e op erat io n

of ve hi cl es no t eq ui pp ed in acco rd an ce wit h th e req ui r e men t s of pa rt 39 3) ; id

. § 39 3.4 5( b) (2 ) (req ui rin g br ak e ho se s to be se cu re d agai ns t ch affi ng ); id

. § 39 3.2 09 (e)
(req ui rin g a ll co m

po ne nt s o f a powe r st eeri ng syste m be in op erat in g con di ti on an d

a p owe r st eeri ng syste m

no t t o l eak ).

Rel y in g on 49 C.F.R. § 39 6.9 (c), Mav er i c k a r gu es th e de fect s were no t

vi ol at in g s afet y

reg ul at io ns be cau se th ey were no t se ve re en ou gh to pl ace t he tru ck

ou t of se rv ic e. W e fin d th is arg um en t un pe rs ua si ve

. Not hi ng in th e te xt of se ct io n

39 6.9 (c), whi ch se ts fo rth th e st an d a r d fo r pl aci ng a ve hi cl e ou t of se rv ic e, li m it s
vi ol at io ns to on ly th os e se ve re en ou gh to pl ace a ve hi cl e ou t of se rv ic e. Acco rd in gl y ,

we fin d no th in g co nt rary to la w ab ou t th e ARB co nc lu di ng Can te r’s refu sa l was

pr ot ect ed act iv it y

.

The ARB al so co nc l ud ed in th e al te rn at iv e th at Can te r’s refu sa l to dr iv e was

pr ot ect ed un de r th e STAA be cau se Can te r ha d a reas on ab le fear of da ng er to hi m se lf

-1 1-or th e pu bl ic du e to th e tru ck ’s un sa fe co nd it io n. S e e 4 9 U .S.C. §§ 31 10 5

(a)( 1) (B)( ii ). Howev er, be cau se we m us t acce pt th e ARB’s co nc lu si on th at Can te r’s

refu sa l to dr i v e was pr ot ect ed be cau se th e un co rrec te d de fect s vi ol at ed sa fet y

reg ul at io ns , we ne ed no t rev ie w th e ARB’s al te rn at e ba si s fo r fin di ng th e refu sa l

pr ot ect ed by the STAA.

Adv ers e Em

pl oym en t Acti on

. Mav eri ck ne xt ch al le ng es as co nt rary to la w th e

ARB’s co nc lu si on th at th e pl acement of th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on in Can te r’s DAC

rep or t was ad ve rs e to Can te r. Mav eri ck arg ue s it was no t ad ve rs e be cau se Can te r was

in it ia ll y ab le to ob ta in em pl oym en t. Had Can te r be en aware of th e ab an do nm en t

no ta ti on whe n Mav eri ck fir st pl a c e d it in hi s DAC rep or t, su ch th at th e li m it at io ns

pe rio d wou ld ha ve el ap se d whi le Can te r was st il l ab le to ob ta in wor k, th at m ig ht be

th e cas e. W e ha ve , aft er al l, he ld th e m ere ex is te nc e of a ne ga ti ve em pl oym en t rep or t

no t to be ad ve rs e in th e ab se nc e of pr oo f th e rep or t ne ga t i ve ly affe ct ed fu tu re

em pl oym en t op po rtu ni ti es

. See Turn er v

. Gon zal es , 42 1 F.3 d 68 8, 69 6 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 ) (h ol di ng ne ga ti v e e mp l o ye e rev ie w no t ad ve rs e un ti l it is us ed to de ny a job

op po rtu ni ty).

U nde r the un us ua l ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e, ho wev er, we can no t co nc lu de the

ARB’s de ci si on was co nt rary to la w. The ARB ha d be fo re it a fin di ng su pp or te d by

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce th at Mav eri ck ’s pl acement of th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on act ua ll y
le d t o C a n t e r be in g de ni ed em pl oym en t. Bec au se th e ARB ha d th at fin di ng be fo re

it

, it s co nc lu si on th at th e pl acement of th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on was ad ve rs e was no t

co nt rary to l aw.

A c c or di ng ly, Mav eri ck ’s ch al le ng e to th e ARB’s co nc lu si on th at Ca n t e r

pr ev ai le d o n h is ret al ia ti on cla im fai ls

.

-1 2-V

Mav eri ck al so ch al le ng es th e ba ck pa y an d co m pe ns at or y da m ag e award s as

co nt rary to la w. It is un di sp ut ed th at an em pl oyer who vi ol at e s th e STAA m ay be

or de re d t o pa y award s fo r ba ck pa y an d co m pe ns at or y da m ag es

. 49 U.S.C.
§ 3 11 05 (3 )(A)(i ii ).

Mav eri ck arg ue s th e cal cu l a t i o n o f th e ba ck pa y award was co nt rary to la w
be cau se th e ALJ di d no t red uc e or el im in at e th e award to acco un t fo r Can te r’s fai lu re

to m it ig at e da m ag es by vo lu nt ari ly le av in g hi s po s i t i o n wit h DSCO. Ty pi cal ly, a

co m pl ai na nt ’s vo lu nt ary de ci si on to le av e an in te rim po si ti on co ns ti tu te s a fai lu re to

m it ig at e d am ag es th at wil l t ol l t he ba ck pa y pe rio d. E.E.O. C. v. Deli gh t W ho le sa le

Co

., 97 3 F.2 d 66 4, 67 0 (8t h Cir. 19 92 ) (ci ti ng Brad y v. Thur st on Mo to r Lin es , In c.,

75 3 F.2 d 12 69

, 12 77 (4 th Ci r. 19 85 )). Howev er, whe n th e ch oi ce to vo lu nt ari ly le av e

th e in te rim po si ti on is “ m ot iv at ed by un reas on ab le wor ki ng co nd it io ns ,” th e de ci si on
do es no t to ll th e ba ck pa y pe rio d. Id .; see als o NLRB. v. Ry de r Sy s., Inc., 98 3 F.2d

70 5, 71 4 (6 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (“ A cl ai m an t who le av es hi s job fo r a jus ti fia bl e reas on do es

no t fo rfei t hi s rig ht to ad di t i o n a l ba ck pa y .”). Can te r le ft DSCO be cau se DSCO

wan te d hi m to vi ol at e h o u r -o f-s erv ic e reg ul at io ns , an un reas on ab le wor ki ng

co nd it io n. Acco rd in gl y , th e ALJ’s de ci si on no t to red uc e th e ba ck pa y award on th at

ba si s was no t co nt rary to l aw.

At th e la st

, Mav eri ck co nt en ds th e $7 5,0 0 0 th e ALJ award ed Can te r as

co m pe ns at or y da m ag es fo r hi s em ot io na l di st r e s s i s c on tra ry to la w be cau se it is

ex ces si ve

. Gen eral ly, “ [a]wards fo r pa in an d su ffer in g are hi gh ly su bjec ti ve an d th e

as se ss m en t of da m ag es is wit hi n th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e” fact fin de r. Ch ris te ns en
v. Titan Dis tri bu ti on , In c., 48 1 F.3d 10 85

, 10 97 (8 th Cir

. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng W eb ne r v.
Tit an Dis tri bu ti on , In c

. , 26 7 F.3 d 82 8, 83 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )). “ W e ha ve in te rv en ed

on ly in th os e rare si tu at io ns w h e r e w e are pr es se d to co nc lu de th at th ere is pl ai n

-1 3-in

jus ti ce or a m on st ro us or sh oc ki ng res ul t.” Hall v. Gus Con st

. Co

., In c., 84 2 F.2d

10 10 , 10 17 (8t h C ir. 1 98 8) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.

Mav eri ck arg ue s th e on ly ev id en ce Can te r of fere d o f h i s de pr es si on was hi s

own te st im on y , an d m os t STAA cas es wit ho ut m ed ic al ev id en ce res ul t in m od es t

award s. “ A pl ai nt iff ’s own te st i mo n y c an be su ffi ci en t fo r a fin di ng of em ot io na l

di st res s, an d m e d i c a l ev id en ce is no t ne ces sa ry .” Ch ris te ns en , 48 1 F.3 d at 10 97
(ci ti ng W eb n e r , 2 6 7 F.3 d at 83 6)

. W e al so no te th e ARB m ak es it s co m pe ns at or y
da m ag e award s gu id ed by th e award s m ad e in cas es in vo lv in g s im il ar i nju rie s. See

Lev ei ll e v. NY Air Nat’l Gua rd

, ARB C a s e N o. 98 -0 79

, 3 (ARB Oct. 25

, 19 99 )
(d is cu ss in g cri te r ia fo r m ak in g co m pe ns at or y da m ag e award s)

. Our rev ie w of th e

ARB’s cas e la w in di cat e s i ts award s fo r co m pe ns at or y da m ag es ha ve va rie d

si gn ifi can tl y

. Alt ho ug h $7 5,0 00 is ne ar th e hi gh en d of th e ran ge , th e ARB ha s m ad e
si m il ar award s in ot he r cas es

. See, e.g ., Mi ch au d v. BSP Tran sp ., In c., ARB Cas e No.

97 -1 13

, 9 ( ARB Oct. 9, 19 97 ) (aff irming award of $7 5,0 00 on ev id en ce of m ajor

de pr es si on an d lo ss of ho m e an d sa vi ng s)

. Acco rd i n g l y, we fin d no ab us e of

di sc ret io n in th e ALJ’s award of $7 5,0 00 a s c o mp e n s at or y da m ag es fo r Can te r’s

em ot io na l d is tre ss

.

VI

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d en y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w.

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t. In m y vi ew , t he re are two di st in ct reas on s why th e
de ci si on of t he Adm in is tra ti ve Rev ie w Boa rd sh ou ld no t b e aff irmed.

A. Fi rs t, th e Bo ard co m

m it te d erro rs of la w in ru li ng th at Can te r’s ret al ia ti on

cl ai m is no t t im e-b arre d b y

th e STAA’s exp res s 1 80 -d ay st at ut e o f li m it at io ns :

-1 4-An em pl oyee al le gi ng di sc ha rg e , d is ci pl in e, or di sc riminat io n in
vi ol at io n of su bs ect io n (a) of th is se ct io n

. . . m ay fil e a co m pl ai nt wit h
th e Secr et ary of Lab or no t la te r th an 18 0 da y s afer th e al le ge d vi ol at io n

oc cu rred

.

49 U.S.C. § 3 1 10 5( b)

. An ag en cy m ay no t ig no re an ex pr es s st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. It refl ect s a le gi sl at iv e “ va lu e jud gm en t co nc ern in g th e po in t at whi ch th e in te res ts in

f a v o r o f pr ot ect in g va li d cl ai m s are ou twei gh ed by th e in te res ts in pr oh ib it in g t h e

pr os ecu ti on of s t a l e c l a i m s.” Jo hn so n v. Rai lway Exp res s Age nc y , In c., 42 1 U.S.

45 4, 4 63 -6 4 (1 97 5) , qu ot ed in Ash le y v. Bo y le 's Fa m ou s C or ne d B eef C o., 6 6 F .3d

16 4, 1 69 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5) (en ba nc ).

Can te r’s co m

pl ai nt was fil ed m or e th an fi ve yea rs aft er Mav eri ck ’s al le ge d

po st -em pl oym en t ret al ia to ry act io n. In st ead of di sm is si ng th e cl ai m as ti m e-b arre d, 6

th e Bo ard su pp os ed ly ap pl ie d th e “ di sc ov ery ru le of fed eral co m m on la w,” op

. at 6,

whi ch th e co ur t ap pr ov es as c o n s i st en t wit h Eig ht h Ci rcu it pr eced en t ab se nt “ a

co nt rary di rect iv e fro m Co ng res s,” id

. at 7. Bu t th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pr es sl y refu se d

to ap pr ov e th at pr eced en t in TRW

, In c. v. And rews ; in st ead

, th e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at

th e “ st ru ct ur e an d te xt ” of th e fed eral st at ut e at is su e in th at cas e “ ev in ce Co ng res s’s

in t e n t t o p r ecl ud e jud ic ia l im pl ic at io n of a di sc ov ery ru le .” 53 4 U.S. 19

, 27 -2 8
(2 00 1)

. In th e fed eral la bo r la ws, Co ng res s ha s co ns is te nt ly ad op te d sh or t st at ut es of

li m it at io ns in th e in te res ts of pr om pt ly res ol vi ng em

pl oym en t di sp ut es an d pr om ot in g

C a n te r’s cl ai m was tru ly st al e. He was hi red se ve n ti m es by fo ur di ffe r e n t 6

tru ck in g co m

pa ni es aft er qu it ti ng Mav eri ck in Decem be r 20 03

. He fir st ex pe rie nc ed

“ di ffi cu lt y ” in Apr il 20 08

, whe n th e co un try’ s “ Great Rec es si on ” ha d gr eat ly red uc ed
th e de m an d fo r tru ck dr iv ers

. Eve n th en , h e w a s h i r ed by DSCO in Ju ly 20 08 an d

qu it in earl y Sep te m

be r 20 08

. W he n he ob ta in ed th e DAC rep or t la te r in Sep te m be r, he ob jecte d to fiv e di ffer en t ne ga ti ve em pl oyer no ta ti on s. Can te r’s da m ag e cl ai m is
ba se d on K&B’s su bs eq ue nt fai lu re to hi re a pr os pe ct iv e em pl oye e wit h a te rri bl e

wor k reco rd at a ti m e whe n th e eco no m y was de pr es se d an d m an y ex pe rie nc ed tru ck
dr iv ers were al so see ki ng work . This cla im sh ou ld be ti m e-b arre d.

-1 5-la bo r pe ace. F o r e x a mp le

, § 10 (b ) of th e Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns Act, 29 U.S.C.

§ 10 (b ), pr ov id es th at “ no co m pl ai nt sh al l is su e ba se d up on an y un fai r la bo r pr act ic e

oc cu rri ng m o r e t h a n si x m on th s pr io r to th e fil in g of th e ch arg e.” In rev ers in g a
de ci si on of th e Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns Bo ard th at fai le d to en fo rce th is li m it at io n,

th e Co ur t en de d wit h a po i n t e d r e mi nd er th at go ve rn s de ci si on s of th e Secr et ary o f

Lab or ’s Adm in is tra ti ve Rev ie w Boa rd as we ll :

As ex po si to r of th e na t i o n a l in te res t, Co ng res s, in th e jud gm en t th at a si x- m on th li m it at io n s pe rio d di d “ no t se em un reas on ab le ,” ba rred th e [NLRB] fro m de al in g wit h pa st co nd uc t aft er th at pe rio d ha d ru n, ev en
at th e ex pe ns e o f th e v in di cat io n o f st at ut or y rig ht s.

Loc al Lod ge No. 14 24

, In t’l Ass ’n of Mac hi ni st v. NLRB, 36 2 U.S. 41 1, 42 9 (1 96 0)

. The Bo ard ig no red th at go ve rn in g p r i n c ip le in ad op ti ng th e di sc ov ery ru le he re.
Und er Ch ev ro n, i ts co nt rary deci si on sh ou ld no t b e aff irmed.

Mo r e o v e r, th e co ur t br us he s as id e a se co nd le ga l erro r by eu ph em is ti cal ly

st at in g th at th e Bo ard ad op te d a “ ve rs io n” of th e di sc ov ery ru le of fed eral co m m on

la w, na m el y , th at Can te r ha d 18 0 da y s aft er rece iv i n g “fi n a l

, de fin it iv e, an d

un eq ui vo cal no ti ce of an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n.” Tha t is no t a “ ve rs io n” of th e

co m m on la w ru le

. The Bo ard ’s ru le is fla tl y co nt rary to th e co m m on la w ru le

, whi ch

,

as th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pr es sl y no te d, in cl ud es an “ in qu iry no ti ce” pr in ci pl e th at

“ tri gg er[s ] th e li m it at io ns pe rio d” when “ a rea so na bl e p ers on in he r po si ti on wou ld

ha ve le arn ed of th e in

jury in th e ex erci se of du e di li ge nc e.” TRW

, 53 4 U.S. at 30 ; se e

Co m cas t of Ill

. X v

. M u l t i

- Vis io n Elec

. In c., 49 1 F.3 d 93 8, 94 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )
(“ Und er th is ru le

, a cau se of act io n accr ue s an d th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns be gi ns to ru n
whe n th e pl ai nt iff di sc ov ers , or wi th du e di li ge nc e sh ou ld ha ve di sc ov er ed

, th e in jury

whi ch is th e ba si s of th e li t i g a t io n.” ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. The Bo ard ’s a do pt io n of a

ru le co nt rary to th e un iv ers al ly acce pt ed di sc ov ery ru le was no th in g le ss th an

un la wfu ll y le gi sl at in g an ex pr es s st at ut e of li m it at io ns ou t o f t h e st at ut e. And th is

-1 6-erro r was far fro m ha rm le ss

. Mav eri ck pr es en te d ev id en ce th at Can te r was no t hi red

by on e tru ck in g co m

pa ny in 20 07 un de r ci rcu m st an ces th at wou ld ha ve cau se d a
di li ge nt , e xp eri en ced tru ck dr iv er to ob ta in hi s DAC, a s C a nt er fin al ly d id in 20 08

. By ad op ti ng a le ga ll y un

jus ti fia bl e “ ve rs io n” of t he di sc ov ery ru le , th e ALJ an d t he

Bo ard were ab le to im

pr op erl y av oi d re so lv in g t hi s i ss ue

.

B. Seco nd

, th e Bo ard

, th e co u r t

, a n d t he pa rti es ag ree th at th e ALJ erre d in

fai li ng to ap pl y a 20 07 am en dm en t to th e STAA: “ All co m pl ai nt s in it ia te d un de r th is

se ct io n sh al l be go ve rn ed by th e le ga l bu rd en s of pr oo f se t fo rth in [4 9 U.S.C.] se ct io n

42 12 1( b) .” 49 U.S.C.A. § 31 10 5( b) (1 ) (2 01 3 Po ck et Part ). The Bo ard co nc lu de d th e

erro r was ha rm le ss , a co nc lu si on Mav eri ck sq ua rel y ch al le ng ed on ap pe al

. The co ur t ig no res th e is su e. I co nc lu de th e Bo ard co m m it te d l eg al erro r.

As Mav eri ck arg ue d, th e ALJ su st ai ne d Can te r’s cl ai m be cau se (i) hi s al le ge d

refu sa l to dr iv e th e tru ck fo r sa fet y reas on s was STAA pr ot ect ed act iv it y ; (ii )

Mav eri ck kn ew of th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y , crea ti ng an in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n; an d
(ii i) Can te r es ta bl is he d th at Mav eri ck ’s pu rp o r t e d reas on fo r th e ad ve rs e DAC

no ta ti on was p ret ex tu al . But in th e 2 00 7 am en dm en t, Con gr es s exp res sl y pro vi de d

th at “ th e Secr et ary of Lab or sh al l di sm is s a co m pl ai nt

. . . un le ss th e co m p l a i na nt

m ak es a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at [th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y ] was a co nt rib ut in g fact or in

th e un fav or ab le pe rs on ne l act io n al le ge d in th e co m pl ai nt .” 49 U.S.C.
§ 42 12 1( b) (2 )(B)

. Here, th e ALJ di d no t req ui re Can te r to pr ov e th e “con tri bu ti ng

fact or ” el em en t o f hi s cl ai m , no r di d th e ALJ m ak e th at fin di ng

. The co ur t b ru sh es

th is as id e by in ve nt i n g a fin di ng th e ALJ ne ve r m ad e -- th at “ Can te r’s refu sa l

m ot iv at ed Mav eri ck to pl ace th e ab an do nm en t no ta ti on in Can te r’s DAC rep or t,” op

.
at 9. All th e A LJ i n f

a c t fo un d was th at Mav eri ck ’s p ro ffer ed ex pl an at io n – whi ch

th e ALJ m is st at ed -- was pr et ex tu al

. By th is fau lt y an al y si s, the ALJ and th e Bo ard

were ab le to av oi d t he cri ti cal is su e p res en te d b y th e ev id en ce i n t hi s ca se

.

-1 7-Fo ll owi ng th e tra gi c acci de nt on Nov em be r 21 , 20 03 , th e Pen ns y lv an ia St at e

Po li c e i n s p e c te d Can te r’s tru ck an d co nc lu de d it ha d de fect s th at vi ol at ed fed eral

sa fet y reg ul a t i o n s b u t ha d no t co nt rib ut ed to th e acci de nt -- two br ak e ad jus tm en t

de fect s th at ren de r e d th e tru ck “ ou t of se rv ic e” (n ot op erab le ) an d a sl ig ht po wer

st eeri ng flu id le ak an d br a k e ho se ch afi ng th at req ui red rep ai r to be br ou gh t in to

co m pl ia nc e bu t were no t “ ou t of se rv ic e” de fect s. Fo ll owi ng ad jus tm en t of th e br ak es

ne ar th e sc en e of th e acci d e n t

, a n d w it h th e ap pr ov al of th e St at e Po li ce an d

Mav eri ck

, Can te r dr ov e th e tru ck 70 -8 0 m il es to a tru ck st op ne ar hi s ho m e whe re th e
lo ad ed tra il er was le ft to be pi ck ed up by an ot he r dr i v e r , t he n ni ne m or e m il es to

Can te r ’s h o m e, whe re it sa t fo r fiv e week s whi le Can te r to ok a m ed ic al le av e of

ab se nc e o n a cco un t o f de pr es si on fro m th e fat al acci de nt

.

On Decem

be r 30

, ha vi ng be en rel eas ed to ret ur n to wor k, Can te r to ld hi s Fl eet

Man ag er th at he was qu it ti ng be cau se Mav eri ck di d no t gr an t hi m wor ke rs ’

co m pe ns at io n be ne fit s fo r hi s no n- ph y si cal em ot io na l in juri es

. The ne xt da y , in st ead

of ret ur ni ng th e tru ck to Mav eri ck ’s y ard in Ohi o, a s th e Fl eet Man ag er ha d

req ue st ed , C an t e r c a l l e d an d sa id he wou ld on ly t ak e it to th e tru ck st op ni ne m il es

fro m hi s ho m e be cau se it ha d “ to o m an y de ad li ne pr ob le m s.” W it ho ut qu es ti on , Mav eri ck m ad e th e DAC no ta ti on be cau se Can te r qu it an d refu se d to dr iv e hi s tru ck

ba ck to Mav eri ck ’s faci li ti es in Ohi o. Bu t was th e no ta ti on m ad e be cau se Can te r ha d

refu se d to dr iv e th e tru ck be cau se it was un sa fe, or be cau se he ha d refu se d hi s fo rm er

em pl oyer’s reas on ab le req ue st th at he dr iv e a tru ck th at ha d sa fet y de fect s req ui rin g

rep ai r bu t was no t ou t of se rv ic e, a tru ck he ha d al read y dr iv en so m e 10 0 m il es in th e

sa m e co nd it io n, to a y ard 25 0 m il es away whe re it co ul d be effi ci en tl y an d pro pe rly

rep ai red ? If th e la tt er, th en th e DAC no ta ti on was a tru th fu l ex pl a n a t i o n of why

Mav eri ck wou ld no t co ns id er reh iri ng Can te r, no t a pr et ex t fo r ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t th is

fo rm er em

pl oyee be cau se he ha d en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed act iv it y

. An ag en cy de ci si on

th at us es an erro ne ou s le ga l st an da rd to av oi d ad dr es si ng th e ke y fact qu es ti on in th e

cas e is , wi th ou t qu es ti on in m y vi ew, “ arb it rary, cap ric io us , a n a b u s e of di sc ret io n,

or ot he rwis e co nt rary to l aw” wit hi n t he m ean in g o f 5 U.S.C . § 7 06 (2 )(A).

-1 8-Fo r ei th er o r bo th th es e rea so ns , I wou ld rev ers e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 9-