## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 1315 R O AD W AY E XPRESS, I NC ., P etitio ner, v. U NI T ED S TATE S D EPART MENT OF L A B OR, Res pond e nt, an d
P ETER P. C EFALU, Interv eno r.

On Pe tition fo r Review o f a FinalOrd er o f the A dm inis trativ e Review Bo ard. A RB C ase No s. 04- 103, 04- 161, and08-110

A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 4, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 22, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. I t has been m ore tha n sev en years sinc e Ro adwayExpr es s (“Ro adway ”) fi r ed Pe te r Ce f alu. T h e litig at ion ov er t h i s a c tio n, ho w ev er , l ive s o n ; th is p et itio n for re vie w rep re se n ts th e p ar tie s’ s e c on d trip bef or e thi s co urt. S ee R o a dw a y E xp ., Inc
. v. U nited S t a t es2 N o. 09

- 1315 D ep’ tof La b or, 495 F.3d 477 (7th C ir. 2 007) ( Roadway I )

. The c a se o r i g i na t e d in Aug us t2 0 0 2 , wh e n Ce f a l u fi l e d a c om pla i nt with the Occupati onalS afetyand H eal th A dm i ni str ati on a l l eging tha t he h ad b een s acke d i n vi ol atio n o fthe Sur f ace Transpor tat i on Assi sta nce Act of 19 8 2 , 4 9 U. S

. C. § 3 1 1 0 5
. Ro a dwa y di s mi s s e d Ce f al u on February 21, 2002 , j ust after he subm i tte d a n otari zed st at ementa t a co - wor k er ’ s g r i ev an ce he ar i nga ss er ting that Roadw ay had i nstr ucted h i m to f al si fy hi s dri vi ng l og. A t a hear i ng be f or e a n adm i ni str ati ve l aw j ud ge ( “A LJ”) at th e D ep ar t m e n t o f L ab or , Ro ad w ay as se rt ed th at it fi r e d Ce f a l u b e c a us e i t r e c e nt l y ha d l e a r ne d tha the ha d l i e d in 1 9 99 on h i s j o b a pp l i c a t i o n. T ho ugh Ce f a l u’ s a ppli cati on s tat ed that he ha d vo l untari l y l eft tw o prev i o us j o b s , i n f a c the h a d l o s tb o th po s i t i o ns o n g r o un ds ofr eckl ess dri vi ng. Duri ng di sco ver y, Cef al u sought to un c o v e r the s o ur c e o fR o a dwa y ’ s i nf or mat i o n, b utR o a dw ay stead fastly r efuse d to com p ly w i ththe ALJ’s discov ery o r d e r r e q u irin g it t o d ivu lge th is p iec e o f ev id en c e. In re sponse, the A LJ i m posed an e vi denti ar y s an c tio n that prohibit ed Roadw ay fro m i ntro du ci ng anyi nfo rm ati on th at th e c om p an y h ad lea rn ed f ro m its so u rc e. U n ab le to ci te Cefa lu ’s disho nestyo r acci dent hi sto ry, Roadw ay f ai l ed to r ebut Cef al u’s ar gum en t th at he had bee n fi re d f o r e n g a g i n gi n p r o t e c t e d c o n d u c tu n d e r th e Ac t
. T he AL J e nt er ed j ud gm en t f o rCe f alu a nd o r der ed hi s r einsta tem ent; the A dm i ni str ati ve Revi ew B oar d (“ A RB ”) a ffi r med

. W hen Roadw ay fi l ed i ts fi rst p et i ti on f orr evi ew with th is court, w e up he ld t he i m p ositi on of the evid en tiary sancti on a gainst Ro adw ay at the m er i ts sta ge . S ee Road-N o. 09

- 1315 3 way I , 49 5 F
. 3d at 484- 85. W e fou n d , h owever, that th e sa nc ti o n s ho ul d no t ha ve g o ne s o f ara s to preve nt Ro a dwa y fr o m a r g ui ng tha tp ub l i c - s a fe t y c o nc e r ns ma de Cefa l u’s r ei nstat em ent i m possibl e or i m pract i cal

. S ee i d. at 485- 86. W e r em anded the case f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs to deter m i ne wh etherRoadw ay w oul d have fi re d C efa lu i n the abse nce o fhi s pro tect ed conduct. S ee i d. On re m and, fi rs t the A LJ a nd then th e A RB co ncl ud ed that R oa d w ay failed to m ee t t h is b u rd en . (B e c a u se th e p et iti on f orr eview a d dress es the AR B’s deci si on, we w i l lnot m en tion th e A L J sep a rately un less there is som e pa rtic u lar rea so n to d o s o.) Ro adwaya r g ue s i n i ts ne w pet i ti o n tha t the A RB mis i nter prete d the s cope o fthe re m and or der w h en it prevente d Roadw ay fro m pre senting argum ents re l ate d to Cefa l u’s di shone st y. I n additi on, Roadw ay poi nts t o Cefa l u’s fi ve previ ous t rucking ac ci dents as ev i dence th at p u b lic-s afety consi derat ion s w eig h d ec isiv ely aga i nst Cef al u’s r ei nstat em en t. The A RB r ej ecte d these ar g ume nt s , a nd we fi nd tha t i t s r ul i ng i s s up po rt ed by substa nti alev i dence.

I B ecau se th e pa rties fiercely con test th e reach of Roadway I , we shoul d begin by re hear si ng the r ele vant aspects oftha tde c i s i o n. Ou r o pi ni o n wa s c a r e fult o di s t i ngui sh be twe enthe us e o fthe e vi den ti ar y s an ct i o n at th e m e r i t s s t a g e fr o m i t s u s e a t th e r e me d i a l s t a g e o ft he pro c e e di ng s . Atthe me r i t s p ha s e , p r e c l ud i ngR o a dw ay fro m r el yi ng on info rm ati on der i ved fro m i ts und i scl ose d4 N o. 09

- 1315

sour ce was an appropri ate sa ncti on, we re aso ned, bec ause othe r wi s e Ce f a l u wo ul d b e u nab l e t o s ho w tha tR o a dw ay ’s p ro ffer ed ex p lan a t ion w as p re te x tu al. Id. at48 4- 85. F o r i ns t a nc e , the s o ur c e c o ul d h a v e r e v e a l e d tha tR o a dway ha d kno wn ab o utCe f alu’ s dr i vi ngr ec o r d l o ng b efo re itfired h im
. Id. at 48 5. T h at th e s an c tio n effe c tiv ely do o m ed Ro adway ’ s m er i ts c as e was unfo r tu na te , b ut the a l ternati ve w oul d have for ced Cef al u to l itigate w ith on e h an d tie d be h in d h is b ac k. Id. Prev ai l i ng on the m er i ts did not, how eve r, m ea n that Cefa l u w as autom ati cal l y e nti tl ed to have his old j ob b ac k. Id. Thi s m ay see m t o be a t o dd s with the A ct, w hi c h pr o v i de s tha ta nye mpl o y e e wh o h a s b e e n fi r ed f orenga gi ng i n prot ecte d acti vi ty m u st be r ei nstat ed to her f or m erposi ti on without a ny change s in pay o r othe r benefi ts. 49 U

. S. C. § 3 1105 ( b) ( 3) ( A )

. But re i nstat em ent i s n o ta l wa y s a p r o pe rr e med y, a s “ i tc o ul d ob l i g a te an em ploye r to re i nstat e a n i ncom petent orunquali fi ed em plo yee . ” Id. To a ddr es s th i s con cern, we i nv o k ed th e “m i xed m oti ve” fra m ew or k that the S up re m e Cour t s et forth in M t
. Hea l t hy Ci ty S c h. Dis t
. Bd. of Edu c . v. D oyle , 429 U
. S. 274, 28 5- 86 ( 1977 )

. ( A l though R oa d w ay i s no w try i ngt o r ely o n M cK enn o n v . N a shv ille B a nn er P ub. C o ., 51 3 U. S

. 35 2 ( 19 95 ) , to j us ti fy i ts dec i si o n to fire C efalu , that case i s a poo r fi t forthe f acts
. A s the S ecr eta ry ’ s br i ef poi nt s o ut, R o a dwa y kne w o fa nd a s s e r t e d d i s ho ne s ty as gr ounds f orte rm i nati ng Cef al u i n th e firs t instance , w hi l e M cKe nno n add re sse s the use ofev i dence acqui re d afterthe w ro n gfu ldi schar ge. ) U nd erthe M t
. He al t hy approach, o nce the pl ai nti ffdem onst ra tes th at h erpro tect ed cond uc t p layed a su bsta nt ialrol e in the d efend an t’sN o. 09

- 1315 5 dec i si o n t o fi r e he r, the b ur dens hi fts t o the de fen dan t to p rove t h a t i t w ou ld stillhav e term inated the p lai nt iff inth e a b se n c e o f h er p ro te c te d co n d u c t. Id. at28 7. Ap p l y i n gth i s g e n e r a lp r i n c i p l e t o C e f a l u ’ s c a s e , we concl ud ed that Roadw ay shoul d have be en gi ven a n opportunity t o ar gue that it would have ter m i nated C e f a l u b e c a u s e o fh i s r e c o r d o ft r u c k i n gac c i de n t s . We expla i ned that a r em and w as necess ar y b ecause : Roadw ay w as en titl ed to sho w thatCef al u i nd eed di ss embl ed i n h i s empl o y m en t appl i ca ti o n t o the c om p an y. C efa lu w ro te th at h e “ re sig n ed ” fro m h is previ ous pos i ti on. In f act, [ he was fi red fo r re ckl ess d rivi ng ]. C efalu, in tu rn, sh ou ld ha ve t h e opp ortuni ty to show that Roadw ay does n ot te rm i nate eve ryon e with such a re cor d, perhaps i fthe perso n ha s ha d a clean record for a certain nu m ber o f y e ars i n the i nter im , o r othe r extenuating ci rcum sta nces exi st. Id. at48 6. W e went on to note thatr em anding th e ca se f orfurther pr o c e e d i n g s o n r e me d y d i d n o ti mpl i c a t e th e s a me c o ncern s tha t m otivated th e i m p ositi on of the evid en tiary sancti on a t the m er i ts phase: Ro adway ’ s wi thho l di ng o fthe i den ti tyo fi ts i nf o r m an t i n no wa y pre v e nt e d C e f a l u fr o m co nt e s t i ngR o a dw ay’ s cl ai m thatr ei nstat em ent was an i napp ro pri ate r e me d y b e c a u s e o fp u b l i c s a fe ty . No th i n gab o u th o w, w hy, o r w hen R oa d w ay l earned about Cefa l u’s m i ssta tem ent i s per ti nent t o Cefa l u’s eff or t t o kee p his j ob6 N o. 09

- 1315 d esp ite his conce d ed earli er pro b lem s. I f th e facts are as Roadw ay conte nd s, then publ i c- safetyco ncer ns, o r eve n re gul ato ryr ule s, m ay m ake i t i m possibl e for R oad w ay to reinstate C e falu

. Road w ay th erefore sh ou ld h ave be en perm itted to refer to Cefalu’s ear l i erdri vi ng r eco rd duri ng the r em edi alst age . Id. On rem and, R oa d w ay too k o ur o pini on a s a n i nvi tatio n to s u b m i t ev id en c e t h at it w ou ld h av e fire d C efa lu f orl yi ng ab out hi s pre vi ous dr i vi ng rec or d. Roadw ay offer ed evi dence thati t had fir ed a num bero fem plo yee s w ho h ad m ad e fal se state m en ts. T he A L J, how ever, d eclined to exp lore th e issue of disho ne s ty, as he un d ersto od the re m and to be l i m i ted so l el y t o add re ssing publ i csa fety c o nc erns r ai se d b y Ce f alu’ s dr i vingr ec o r d, a nd th e ARB endo r se d thi s dec i si o n. W i thr es pec t to the r i skCefa l u’ s dr i vingpo se d t o the pu bl i c, Roadw ay subm i tte d the fol l ow ing e vi dence about Cefa l u’s fi ve ear l i ertr ucki ng ac ci dents.

• 19 92 - E m p loy er : U n ite d P ar c el Se rv ice . C efa lu sw er ve d h is t ru c k ou t o f th e w ay of a c ar , los t c on tr ol, and cras hed i nto a dra i nage p ip e d itch. I t i s no t cl ear how m uch dam age the t ruck suffer ed, but Cefa l u w as fi re d fo r re ckl ess dri vi ng. • 1 99 8

- Em pl o y er : AN R Adva nc e Tr an spo r ta ti o n. Cefa l u fel las l eep wh i l e dri vi ng and hi s t ruck str uck a g ua r dr ai l

. The t r ucks uffer ed “maj o r da m ag e” a nd Cefa l u w as fi re d fo r re ckl ess dri vi ng.N o. 09

- 1315 7 • A ugust 2 7, 20 05

- Em plo yer : Roadw ay. W hen Ce falu was park i ng, he r an hi s t ruck i nto the e dge o f a p ar ke d tru c k. T h e t r u c ks su ffer ed ap p ro x im at ely $600 i n dam age . Roadw ay i ssued a w ar ni ng l ett er to Ce f alu. • May 2 9, 2 00 6

- Em pl o y er : Ro adway

. W hi l e back i ng up hi s t ruck i n an e ff or t t o coupl e hi s t ruck- tr acto r to a t ra i l er, Cef al u dam age d the l eft- w i ng o fthe tr ucktr ac to r . Ro adwayi ss ue d a war ni ngl et te r t o Ce f alu.

• O c to b er 21 , 20 06 - E m p loy er : R oa d w ay . N o d et ails o fthi s a c c i de nta r e c o nt a i ne d in the r e c o r d. Be sid es Cefa l u’s dri vi ng r eco rd, Roadw ay al so offer ed empl o y m en t r ec o r ds s ho wi ngtha t i t ha d fi r ed f o ur ot h er d riv er s in v o l v e d in s im ilar or les s s ev er e a c c idents. Cefa l u counter ed by prese nti ng evi de n c e that appr oxim ate l y 1 2 o therdri ver s had notl ostthei r j obs aft er ge tt in g t h em se lve s i n t o a n alo go u s o r w or se ac c idents. In w ei ghi ng the ev id en c e present ed by both si des, th e AL J ul ti m at ely s i ded wi thCe f alu a nd f o und that Roadw ay f ai l ed to show thati t would have fi re d him ev eni n the abs en ce o fhi s pr o te ct ed ac ti vi ty
. The A RB ag re ed w i th the A LJ’ s a sse ssm ent a nd not ed that Cefa l u’s em plo ym ent a s a tr uck dri verwould not ser i ousl y e nd angerthe publi c.

II Ourr ev i ew o fthe ARB’ s dec i si o n i s g ui ded bythe st an d ar d se t fo rt h in t h e A d m in ist ra tiv e P ro c ed u re A c t, 5 U
. S. C

. § 706. See 49 U

. S. C

. § 31105(d ). W e m ay overtu rn8 N o. 09

- 1315 the AR B’s l ega lco ncl usi ons onl y i f t hey a re “a rbi tr ar y, c ap ric iou s, an ab u se of dis c re tio n, or ot h er w ise n o t in acc ord an ce w ith law

. ” 5 U

. S. C

. § 706(2)( A ). Th e A R B ’s f i nd i ng s o f f a c t mus t b e up he l d i f s up po r t e d by subs ta n tia l ev id en c e. 5 U .S.C . § 70 6(2 )(E ); Roadway I , 49 5 F
. 3 d at 48 3
. T o s a t i s fy the s ub s t a nt i a le v i de nc e s t a nd a r d, the A RB m ust re l y on “such re l evant evi dence as a re ason able m ind m ight acc ep t as ad eq ua t e to sup p ort the c oncl usi on. ” Ro adway I , 495 F.3d at48 3. U n d er th is de fe r e nt i a ls t a nd a r d o fr e v i e w, we ma y n o t“ s e ta s i de an i nfe re nce m er ely bec ause [ w e] fi nd [ ] the opposi te c on c lu sio n m or e re as on ab le

. ” Addis v. D ep’ t of L a b or, 575 F.3d 688 , 690 (7th C ir. 2009) (ci tation om itted ).

A Ou r fi rs t t aski s t o cl earup th e lin ger i ng uncer tainty abou t t he s co pe o fo urr emand o r der

. Ce f alu a nd the Dep ar tm ent o f Laboras ser t that the r epeate d refer ences to publ i c- sa fety i n Roadway I“ cl ea r l y ” i ndi ca te tha t th e rem an d w as li m ited to th is top ic. R oad w a y c ou nt ers that th e un derl yi ng l ogi c o fthe M t
. He al t hyapproa ch enti tl es i t t o prese nt anyr eas on i t would have fi re d Cefa l u. W i th r ega rd to Cef al u’s di shones ty, Roadw ay poi nts o ut thatwe speci fi cal l y m enti oned that“Roa dw ay w as en tit led to sh ow th at C efa lu ind ee d d iss em b l e d in hi s e m plo ym en t a pp l i cati on t o the c om pany. ” Roadway I , 495 F. 3d at 486. W e f i nd l i t t l e s u p p o r tf o r R o a d wa y ’ s r e a d i n go fo ur fi r sto pi ni o n in thi s ca se . Ce f al u’s f al se e m pl o y m en t ap p li cation w as m en tione d only to si gn al that, for pu r-N o. 09

- 1315 9 poses o fthe re m edy, Road w ay w as enti tl ed to i ntro du ce e v i d e n c e th a tC e f a l u h a d i n f a c tb e e n i nt wo s e r i o us ac c id en ts be for e join in g R oa d w ay . H is h ist or y w ou ld thus b e o ne pi ec e o fe vi den ce t en di ngto sh ow tha t he was a n un sa fe dr i ve r . Thi s r ea di ngi s co ns i st en t wi tho ur expla nati on a few se nt en c es l ate r that Cefa l u m i ght b e abl e t o re fute Roa dw ay’ s ca se by prese nti ng ev i dence th at R oa d w a y d i d n otfire e m p loy ee s w ith co m p ar ab le dr i vingr ec o r ds. I fdi sh o ne sty w ere al so a t i ss ue , o ur expla nati on o fCef al u’s defense tacti cs woul d have be en j ar r i ng l y i nc o m pl et e. W hi l e Ro adwayb el i eve s th ato ur r e l i a nc e o n the M t. Heal t hyfra m ew or k o pened the door to its d ish on es ty ar gu m en ts , ou r em p h as is onp u b lic safetybel i es the i dea thatwe i nt en d ed to o pen the doo r f o r Ro adwayt o o ffero th err ea so ns f o r fi r i ngCe f alu. W e dre w thi s di stincti on be tw een pu bl i c sa fetyand other law fu l m ot ive s fo r te rm in at in g C efa lu ’s e m p loy m en t in o r dert o r es pec t the A ct’ s r emedi als tructur e. Anythi ng that w e do m ust g i ve effect to the a ut om at i c r ei nstat em ent r em edy se t for th i n the st at u te
. W e thus car ved ou t o n ly a n e x c e p tio n for c as es w h er e re in st at em en t is i m po ss ibl e o r i m pr ac ti ca lb ec au se o fpub l i c- sa fety c o ncer ns. S ee Roadway I

, 4 95 F
. 3d at4 85 ( ex pl ai nin g t ha t th e Ac t ’ s ma n d a t o r y r e i n s t a t e me n tp r o v i s i o n mu s tb e t e mpered bythe pract i cal i ty ofr etur ni ng the e m plo yee to he r p r i o r po s i t i o n)

. F a i l ur e t o r e c o g ni z e s uc h a n e xc e pti on would be abs urd, as i t co uld r esult in the re i nstat em en t o f u n s a f e d riv er s in co n tr av en tio n of ap p lica b le re gul ato ry r ule s. To a voi d si m i l ar l y i l l ogi calr esul ts, an alo gous l i m i tat i ons on r ei nstat em ent a re r eco gni zed10 N o. 09

- 1315 inth e T i tle V II c on te x t. Se e, e . g. , Wi l l i am s v. Phar m ac i a, Inc. , 13 7 F. 3d 944, 952 ( 7th Cir

. 19 98) ( noti ng tha t r ei nstat em en t is n otav aila b le u n d er T itl e V II if it is n otp os sib le f o r e m pl o y ee t o r etur n t o wor k )

. As im p ract i ca l i tyi s th e gu iding p rinciple for li m itations on reinst atem en t, there is l ittle reason to al low Road w ay to argu e abou t C efalu’s dishon esty. W hi l e Roa dw ay m ay not l i ke to em plo y tr uck dri ver s who have been disho nest, it is diffi cul t t o say tha t r e qu i r i ng Ro a dwa y t o r e t a i n the s e dr i v e r s i s no t feas ibl e. Des pi te R o adway ’ s as se r ti o ns t o the c o nt r ar y, o ur deci si on t o em plo y the M t. H e al t hy fra m ew or k is co ns i st en t wi th a pa r ti cul arf o cus o n pub l i c- sa fety c o ncer n s. Inste ad ofl i m i ti ng the pro ceedi ngs o n re m and to a n e x a mi n a t i o n o fth e a p p l i c ab l e d r i v i n gs a fe t y l aws , we i nstr ucted the age nc y to deter m i ne wh etherRoadw ay wo ul d h a v e fi r e d C e f a l u b e c a us e o fh i s d ri vi ngr e c o r d. Though thi s approach tak es Roadw ay’ s p erspecti ve i nt o c o ns i der at i o n, i t di d notc o nt empl at e o pen i ngthe do o r t o a n e xa m i na ti o n o fo th erpo ss ibl e m o ti ve s be hi nd R oad w ay ’s d e cision to dism iss Cefalu. Rath er, w e are i nter est ed onl y in w hat Roa dw ay w ou ld have done w i th a pe r so n wi thCe f alu’ s dr i vingr ec o r d who ha d no t en gag ed i n prot ecte d acti vity . T h at i nquir y s er ves as a useful proxy f ordeter m i ni ng wh etherCef al u’s r ei ns tatem ent woul d prese nt a p ubl i c- safetyhaza rd. Giv en that R oa d w ay h as ex p er i e n c e in th is field an d p re su m ab ly bear s the cos ts f or unsafe dri ver s, i t shoul d b e a reasonab l e j ud ge ofan e m plo yee ’ s s uit abi l i ty f ordri vi ng.N o. 09

- 1315 11 B U nd erthe M t
. He al t hyfra m ew or k, Roa dw ay m ust p ro ve th at it w ou ld h av e fire d C efa lu be c au se of h is ac c id en t h ist or y re ga rd les s o f w h et h er h e e n ga g ed in prot ecte d conduct. S ee Roadway I , 4 9 5 F
. 3 d a t 4 8 6

. R o a dway ne ed no t, ho wev er, s ho w tha t Cef alu’ s empl o y m en t w oul d v i ol ate any re gul ato ry rul es. I f Road w ay em plo ys m or e s tr i ngent safetyst andards than thos e r equi re d by l aw , then i t i s enti tl ed to hol d Cef al u to them . N on ethel ess , i n or der to sat i sfy i ts burden, Road w ay cannot si m pl y c i te “ st an dar ds es tabl i sh ed i n i ts e m pl o y ee manu al.” She e han v. D onl e n Corp. , 17 3 F
. 3d 10 39 , 10 48 ( 7th C ir. 1999 )

. I t m ust instea d dem onst ra te that i t had an “a c tu al e mpl o y men tp r a c t i c e [ ] ” o ffi r i ngdr i v e r s wi th r e c o r ds an alo go u s t o C efa lu ’s. Id. ; Pri ceWat e rhous ev. Hopki ns , 49 0 U .S. 22 8, 25 2 (1 98 9) (“ P ro vin g t h at th e s am e d ec isio n w ou ld ha ve been just i fi ed i s no t th e sa m e as pr o vingtha t th e sa m e dec i si o n wo ul d ha ve b ee n made

. ”)

. On r emand, the parti es b ot h subm i tte d evi dence abo ut the w ay that Roadw ay tr eat ed other dri ver s with accident re cor ds. Give n the c onfl i cti ng ev i dence on Roadw ay’ s t er m i nati on pra cti ces, the A RB f ound that R oa dw ay had fa i l ed to c ar r y i ts b ur den

. A lth ou gh w e a c k n ow led ge th at rea so n ab le p eo p le m igh t d iffer ab ou t t h e o u tc om e h er e, w e h av e n o t ro u b le fi nd ing tha t sub s t an tial evid en ce su p p orted the A R B ’s d ec isio n . C

f. Spiegl a v. H ull, 371 F

. 3d 928, 94 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( concl ud i ng tha t defendant f ai l ed to car ryits bur den of p ro o f u n d er M t
. He al t hy )

. Ce f alu’ s th r ee mos t r ec en t ac ci den ts wer e al lr el at i ve l y min o r i nc i den ts r es ul ting12 N o. 09

- 1315 i n l i ttl e pr oper ty dam age . H i s o nl y tw o seriou s acci dents occur re d between 12 and 17 y ear s a go. Cef al u p re se n ted evi dence thatRoadw ay had ret ai ned dr ivers w ho had been in vo l ved i n m uch m or e e gr egi ous a cci dents. Fo r instanc e, Ro adwaydi d no t fi r e Er i c J o r g en se n a fte r he dr o ve hi s trucki nt o a p o werl i ne

— a m i shap that caused th e tr uck t o ro l lo verand spi l lhaza rdous m ate ri al s. N o r di d Ro adwayt er m i na te Kev i n E m br y ’ s empl o y m en t afterhe pr opel led hi s t ruck i nto a l ow bri dge thatwas cl ear l y m ar ked. Roadw ay has a l so continu ed to em plo y d riv er s w h o h ad be en res p on sib le for m u l t i p le a c c iden ts
. The mos t ex tr eme e xa m pl e i s Donna S ex to n, who w as stil l e m p l oye d afterge tting her sel fi nto at l eas t 10 charg eabl e a cci dents wh i l e work i ng f orRoadw ay. Roadw ay’ s e vi dence thati t fi re d fo ur dri ver s be cause th eywer e i nv o l ve d i n a cc i den ts doe s l i tt l e to unde r cut the v i ew thatthe A R B t oo k o fCef al u’s cas e. A t m ost, i t s how s that there was evi dence on the o thersi de that m i ght ha ve sw aye d the deci si on. Three o fthe dri ver s that R oa dw ay sack ed w er e invol ved i n w hat Roa dw ay descr ibed as “se ri ous” acci dents cau se d bythei r re ckl ess n ess . The o therdri verwas i nvol ved i n thr ee preven ta b le ac ci den ts i n a s i ng l e m ont h. In c o nt r as t, Ce f alu’ s r ec en t acci dents to ok pla ce o ver a yea r- l ong peri od and Roadw ay described the acci dents as “pre ventabl e” but notse ri ous. S h i f ti ng i t s l i n e o fa t t a c k, R o a d wa y u r g e s th a twe sh o ul d a cc o r d l i tt l e w eightt o Ce f alu’ s ev i den ce tha t th e com pany i n the past has r eta i ned other d riv ers with ser i ous a cci dent r eco rds. Thei r re tenti on, Roadw ay say s, cam e a s the r es u l t o fa set tl em ent with the unio n; tho seN o. 09

- 1315 13

se tt l ement s pr o vi ded th at R o adwayc o ul d s us pen d the o ffe n d i n g d r i v e r s r a th e r th a n fi r e th e m . R o a d w a y i mpl i es tha t i t woul d ha ve t ak enthe mor e dr as ti c st ep but f orthe unio n’s i nter venti on. There i s s om e e vi dence that Roadw ay had a pract i ce of i ssui ng disc harge n ot i ces that w ou ld then be r educed to s uspensi ons afternego ti atio n s w ith th e u n ion or b y or d er of a gr iev an c e p an el. Ro adwaythe r efo r e cl ai m s th ati ts a g r ee m ent w i ththe unio n to se ttl e these ter m i nati on di sp u te s pro vi des l i tt l e i ndi ca ti o n o f w he th eri t woul d ha ve fi r ed Cef alu, sinc e th e uni o n di d no t si de wi thCe f alu w he n he c o ntes ted hi s di schar ge. Yet Roa dw ay f ai l s t o re cogni ze that the uni on m ay have decl i ned to ta ke up C ef al u’s gr i evance bec ause i t be l i eve d that he had bee n d ish onest, wh i ch w as R oa d w ay ’s p r o f f e re d rea so nfor firin g C efa lu . Th er e is nothi ng to i nd i cat e th at the uni on had a probl em with Cefa l u’s dri vi ng r eco rd. A s the Departm ent o fLabor poi nts o ut, i t i s unli kel y that the uni on would ta ke such a posi ti on gi ven that i t had defended dri ve rs invol ved i n m uch w or se acci d en ts
. Fur ther m or e, Roadw ay has done l i ttle t o su pp or t a fi nd i ng tha t i t would have fi re d eve rydri ver invol ved i n a s er i ous a cci dent i fthe unio n had not s tepped i n. S im p l y b ecause i ts pract i ce i s t o i ss ue di sc ha r g e o r der s and the n n eg o ti at e wi ththe unio n does not m ean that i t w oul d neverse ttl e a te rm i nati on pro ceedi ng with an em plo yee wh o l acke d union supp or t. Lastl y, as sum i ng that Cefa l u’s dri vi ng r eco rd would not ha ve c o ns ti tu te d g r o unds f o r t er m i na ti o n, Ro adwayc o n-14 N o. 09

- 1315
te nds tha t i t woul d v i o l at e th e publi c po l i cyunde r l y i ng the S urf ace Transpor tat i on Assi sta nce Act to reinstate Cef alu, a n a ll eg edly da ng er o us dr i ve r . But, a s th e ARB n ot ed an d R oa d w a y d oe s n otd en y, R oa d w ay rou tin ely re t a i ns dr i v e r s e v e n tho ugh the y ha v e s o me s a fe t y pro bl e ms i n the i r r e c o r d. The ARB wa s e nt i t l e d t o c o nc l ud e th atRo adwayf ai l ed to de m o ns tr at e th atCe f alu’ s r einsta tem ent puts the pu bl i c in harm ’ s w ay. I t dem onst ra ted nei therthatCef al u’s co nti nued em plo ym ent woul d vi ol at e an y r egul at o r y r ul es no r tha t it w ou ld vi o l at e an y i nter nalprac ti ces Roadw ay actual l y use s. A s o ur di scu ssion sh ow s, th ere is m ore tha n en ou gh eviden tiary su ppo r t f o r the ARB’ s co nc l us i o n tha t Cef alu’ s dr i ving hi sto rydoes noti nd i cate thathe i s unfi t t o dri ve a t ruck. W e there f or e co ncl ud e that the A RB w as enti tl ed to fin d th at rein st at em en t w as an a p p r o p ria te rem ed y in thi s ca se. In re achi ng thi s co ncl usi on, we em pha siz e that C efa lu h as no r i ght t o any pr efer enti altr eat m ent a s a re su lt of h is p ro te c te d ac tiv ity . Ro a d w a y w as (an d w ill be ) fr ee t o t er m i na te Ce f alu’ s empl o ym en t f o r a ny re as on u n re lat ed to h is p ro te c te d ac tiv i t y. T h u s, if C efa lu p roves to b e a da ng er on th e road i n th e futu re or otherw ise engages i n i m perm i ssibl e co nd uct, Roadw ay i s in n o w ay inh ibit ed from firin g h im
. * * * W e D EN Y R o a d wa y ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w.

7- 22- 10