Document: 481 U.S. 252 107 S.Ct. 1740 95 L.Ed.2d 239 William E. BROCK, Secretary of Labor and Alan C. McMilan, Regional Administrator, Occupational Safety Health Administrationv.ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. No. 85-1530. Argued Dec. 3, 1986. Decided April 22, 1987. Syllabus Section 405 the Surface Transportation Assistance Act 1982 forbids discharge employees in commercial motor transportation industry retaliation for refusing to operate vehicles that do not comply with applicable safety standards or filing complaints alleging such noncompliance. The statute provides Labor's initial investigation an employee's and, upon a finding reasonable cause believe employee was discharged violation Act, requires order temporary reinstatement by employer, who may then request evidentiary hearing final decision from Secretary. This does stay preliminary order. employer be notified complaint, but specify procedures participation Secretary's investigation. After appellee, trucking company subject § 405's requirements, one its drivers allegedly intentionally damaging his assigned truck, unsuccessfully sought relief under governing collective-bargaining agreement, contending he having previously complained violations. He filed complaint Department violated 405. Appellee field investigator, pursuant pertinent rules, interviewed other employees, obtaining statements substantiating retaliatory claim. afforded opportunity meet investigator submit written statement detailing basis discharge, it provided substance evidence collected investigator. Ultimately, administrative issued ordering backpay. this action Federal District Court, seeking injunctive declaratory judgment 405, extent empowered without first conducting hearing, deprived appellee procedural due process Fifth Amendment. court granted injunction later, summary appellee. Held: is affirmed part reversed part. 624 F.Supp. 197, Justice MARSHALL, joined BLACKMUN, POWELL, O'CONNOR, concluded that: 1 1. issuance, after entry Court's judgment, following requested render appeal moot. Although appellee's obligation reinstate backpay now flows order, which were directed, controversy between as constitutional adequacy prior issuance falls within "capable repetition, yet evading review" exception actual case-and-controversy requirement. Pp. 257-258. 2 2. Court properly held unconstitutionally Amendment failing provide supporting before reinstatement. However, lack did deny process. 258-268. 3 (a) Determining consideration Government's interests promoting highway protecting discharge; employer's interest controlling makeup work force case, property concededly entitled protections—in contractual right cause; being about unsafe conditions; risk erroneous deprivations through challenged procedures; probable value additional substitute safeguards. 262-263. 4 (b) In view legislative balancing here, prereinstatement notice allegations, relevant evidence, response, present rebuttal witnesses. These reliable check against mistaken decisions, cf. Cleveland Board Education v. Loudermill, 470 532, 105 1487, 84 494; Arnett Kennedy, 416 134, 94 1633, 40 15, minimum context require confrontation cross-examination witnesses reinstatement, where prompt postreinstatement available. Appellee's contention requiring leading would impose significant burden on since subsequent if must "expeditiously conducted" any event, persuasive. 263-267. 5 BRENNAN agreed inform where, there are factual disputes pertaining validity deprivation no assurance adequate will prompt, unconstitutional unless they give test strength confronting cross-examining adverse presenting own behalf. 269-271. 6 WHITE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SCALIA, erred holding full trial-type necessary termination, so long posttermination at meaningful time, also expressed withholding witnesses' names light purpose, violate rights. 271—272. 7 STEVENS insofar should toto, expressing case justify disclosed tested adversary proceeding became effective. 273-278. 8 J., announced delivered opinion JJ., joined. BRENNAN, concurring dissenting part, post, p. 269. REHNQUIST, C.J., joined, 271. STEVENS, 273. 9 Andrew J. Pincus, Washington, D.C., appellants. 10 Michael Towers, Atlanta, Ga., 11 MARSHALL O'CONNOR join. 12 1982, 96 Stat. 2157, 49 U.S.C.App. 2305, protects vehicle state federal regulations issue directing employee. Secretary, presented whether failure deprives 13 * Roadway Express, Inc. (Roadway), large interstate engaged primarily cargo transportation; requirements See 2301(3). On November 1983, drivers, Jerry Hufstetler, had disabled several lights truck obtain extra pay while waiting repairs. Hufstetler grievance, been "act dishonesty" defined rather grievance submitted arbitration, ultimately resulted ruling January 30, 1984, discharged. 14 February 7, Administration began An OSHA obtained Hufstetler's their statements. explained reiterating that, found arbitration board, acted dishonestly fabricating equipment breakdown. 15 Following review Administrator 21, 1985, immediate Without relied decision, stated Roadway's trucks. characterized asserted "conjecture." App. Juris. Statement 21a. 16 enforcement hearing. motion injunction, Donovan, 603 249, subsequently 197 (ND Ga.1985). 17 objections decision. took place March Administrative Law Judge, August 1986, again currently pending United States Appeals Eleventh Circuit, 86-8771. 18 brought direct granting judgment. 28 U.S.C. 1252. We noted jurisdiction, 476 1113, 106 1966, 90 652 (1986), affirm agreeing reverse rejecting conclusion constitutionally infirm because empowers affording cross-examine II 19 As threshold matter, we conclude acknowledge back wages directed. Nonetheless, Southern Pacific Terminal Co. ICC, 219 498, 515, 31 279, 283, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911). duration too short challenge fully litigated; can reasonably expected Roadway, Nation's largest companies, subjected similar orders future. Weinstein Bradford, 423 147, 149, 347, 348, 46 350 (1975). Accordingly, proceed merits appeal. III 20 enacted 1983 encourage reporting noncompliance vehicles. Congress recognized often best able detect violations yet, threatened cooperating agencies, need express protection these See, e.g., 128 Cong.Rec. 32698 (1982) (remarks Sen. Percy); id., 32509-32510 Danforth). "whistle-blowers" forbidding discipline, forms discrimination response complaining standards. 2305(a), (b). 21 choose operating losing job practical effectiveness could reinstated complete review. longer remains unemployed, more devastating consequences personal financial condition prospects reemployment. Ensuring eventual recovery alone sufficient reports incorporates protections, authorizing based has suffered discharge. reflects careful relative Government, employee, employer. It evidences determination followed "expeditiously" record request, effective ensure fair making unimpaired hiring decisions. 2305(c)(2)(A). 22 investigation, than complaint. 2305(c)(1). investigative responsibilities investigators, 48 Fed.Reg. 35736 (1983) (Secretary's Order 9-83), standard until formal implementing rules December 51 42091 (1986) (proposed 29 CFR pt. 1978). governed required "of allegation" consult explanation made findings Instruction CPL 2.45A CH-4, X-5 (Mar. 8, 1984); DIS.6, pp. 4, (Dec. 12, 1983); Investigative Manual, V-1, VI-3, VI-4 (1979). current including position. Fed.Reg., 42093 1978.103).1 23 Neither set procedures, however, hold allow whom Nor divulge individuals takes effect. claims confidentiality investigator's employers 24 asserts derives agreement employees' union. cause. Acknowledging step identify liberty 538-539, 1491-92, 494 (1985); Regents Roth, 408 564, 576-578, 92 2701, 2708-09, 33 548 (1972), concedes constitutes protected Amendment.2 Brief Appellants 16. 25 "Once determined applies, question what due." Morrissey Brewer, 471, 481, 2593, 2600, 484 (1972). Though vary according stake particular context, Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 378, 91 780, 786, 113 (1971), "[t]he fundamental requirement heard 'at time manner.' " Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 333, 893, 902, 47 (1976), quoting Armstrong Manzo, 380 545, 552, 85 1187, 1191, 62 (1965); see Mullane Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 306, 313, 70 652, 656, 865 (1950). Depending circumstances, stake, fairly extensive legitimate claim entitlement terminated. Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 266-271, 1011, 1019-22, 287 (1970) (suspension welfare benefits invalid preceded giving recipient confront argument orally). instances, upheld less 'some kind hearing' ensuring "initial decisions" occurs, judicial supra, U.S., 542, S.Ct., 1493, 1495, 569-570, 2705; Mathews, 349, 909. 26 predeprivation imposing deprivation, private those affected 335, 903. assessed factors "unconstitutional void [the Secretary] comports process." F.Supp., 203. given, "at minimum, side chance cross examine witnesses." Ibid. Our leads us different conclusion. 27 begin accepting substantial sufficiently widespread warrant enactment specific protective legislation encouraging report "Random inspections State law officials various parts country [had] uniformly regulations," designed assist combating "increasing number deaths, injuries, damage accidents." 32509, 32510 Danforth proposed statute). agree substantial. 202. assessing competing interests, failed consider another decision: acknowledged "severity depriving person means livelihood." 543, 1494. "While fired worker find employment elsewhere, doing take some likely burdened questionable circumstances left previous job." injurious effect have status alternative interim employment, retaining considered along determining procedures. "the strong Congressional policy persons health suffer action" "to assure unjustified refusal perform tasks." (summary Reviewing include temporarily reinstated. So establish decisions," expeditious available, provision balances otherwise required. 30 thus crucial reliably protect even only temporary, presentation formal, stage proceedings. government cause, indicating "oral charges him, story" effect, though delayed period. 546, 1495. Similarly, (1974), Government discharged, afford "advance reasons materials [was] based," well respond both orally writing, submission affidavits." Id., 170, 1652 (opinion J.). cases reflect entails, informed nature evidence. If information, contain unacceptable 32 represents practice investigators allegations. 40, n. 19. manuals new regulations, accept representation embodying established, official procedure specifically aware. undisputed, followed, denied access information 200. Given circumstance, correctly entitled, respect. Notice little use avenue available effectively articulate response. score, assuming allowing affidavits documents, verbally witnesses, 1, supra; 1978.103), satisfy reliability. Except case. 34 contends absent whose support produce unreliable conclude, general rule adequately cross-examination, manner." Armstrong, 1191. Providing informally argue position orally, satisfies Each contributes significantly reliability extending inordinately period unemployment. To credibility opposing during increase delay. Moreover, primary function make determinations, determine simply exists engaging conduct. maintains principal focus conduct reason Final assessments appropriately reserved judge, provided. 35 finally argues event. Again, suggested approach undoubtedly delay reinstatement.3 addition itself, incentive engage dilatory tactics. Added proceedings further undermine ability livelihood, unfairly tip statute's balance them. 36 say, resolution never violation. At point, hearings become 547, 1496. Barry Barchi, 443 55, 66, 99 2642, 2650, 61 365 (1979); 341-342, 905-06. days files good shown. 1978.106(b)). judge allowed parties 42094 1978.109(a)). 120 days. 1978.109(c)). interprets mandatory "directory nature." 42095 1978.114). Once lies naturally intentional foot dragging entitle why months litigation distraction, natural played personnel extreme inefficiency. Because posture development issue, decline decide encountered, delays authorized excessive constitute IV 37 imposed therefore prepare erred, interpreted ordered. 38 Affirmed 39 I plurality's disagree, indefinite contrary testimony Here contested facts underlying retaliatory. When pertain "require[s] simple deny." 1499, (1985) (BRENNAN, part). Predeprivation "an decisions—essentially, grounds . true action." 545-546, 1495 (emphasis added). When, disputed central factual, when, 'by [its] behalf.' 548, 1497 (MARSHALL, judgment) (quoting 214, 1674, (1974) dissenting)). Thus, accuser, records testimony.* 41 speed postdeprivation made. Previously potentially wrongful important factor impact involved." Mackey Montrym, 2612, 2618, 321 1496 ("At post-termination violation"). Were guarantee occur promptly—within few weeks, example—the endorsed might suffice. No exists. 42 itself conducted." But, plurality states, expressly total six judge's opinion, Ante, ----. overly generous merely nature," mandatory. One regulatory requirements—that "[u]pon final] shall hundred twenty days"—is statute. Leaving aside dubious cavalier treatment statutory imperative, fact regards periods directory reveals reached months, let promptly. combination uncertainty inherent scheme eliminates possibility compensate inadequacy 43 providing testimony, dissent Court. 44 SCALIA join, 45 time. respondent Inc., them ordered him. all respect, disagree when based, Due Process Clause taken vary, depending precise involved, importance governmental action, Cafeteria Workers McElroy, 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230 (1961). Loudermill 1652, sure guide resolving ably articulates purpose 405: "Section 'whistle-blowers' standards." 258. And himself terminated paid remuneration. scale unsatisfactory That interest, charges, struck statute, more, most voluntarily reveal charge. ignore turning over spoke corroborated claims, respondent's rights, myself partial extraordinary piece legislation. organized industries machinery established agreements, unions. carrier industry, every driver special agent determines "reasonable believe" reported conducted 11-month ex parte culminated Express driver. course given list much Yet, "preliminary" continue employing dishonest indeterminate truth eventually established. 50 compelling justifies creation share public's vital strict regulations. patently unfair implement right. Specifically, secret neither nor becomes attempts departure traditions asserting essential act swiftly; feared, deter There are, course, situations threat irreparable injury hearing.1 government's efficient management programs administers sometimes makes appropriate briefly postpone adjudication rights program beneficiary, licensee, made.2 ludicrous rely "emergency" "necessity" justification entered clear attempt employees. Rather, investigations drag months. example, Department's deserved him.3 Obviously, ample circumstances,4 reliance vague assertion misguided.5 52 balancing, concludes crossexamination "increase delay." 266. Aside exaggerating element delay, reasoning unduly minimizes critical role plays accurate factfinding. suggests conduct." how possibly conflicting accounts determinations? Should witness easily impeached (if allowed) cause"? 53 Cross-examination truth-determining elementary proposition bears repetition: 54 "Certain principles remained relatively immutable our jurisprudence. seriously injures individual, reasonableness depends findings, used prove individual show untrue. While documentary consists memory faulty, who, fact, perjurers motivated malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, jealousy." Greene 360 474, 496, 79 1400, 1413, 1377 (1959). 489, 2604, (1972); 269, 1021, (1970).6 words Dean Wigmore: "The belief safeguard testing human comparable furnished conviction (unless exception) probed sublimated test, increasing lengthening experience." Wigmore, Evidence 1367 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974). 56 Even merit novel outweighs confrontation, each witness' least enable oral arguments credit testimony. certainly intolerable type hybrid safeguard, although optimal, far better nothing. "Secrecy congenial truth-seeking." Anti-Fascist Committee McGrath, 341 123, 171, 71 624, 649, 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, concurring). understand holding, disclose "substance evidence" disclosure 57 willingness sacrifice obscure suggestion necessity serious flaws analysis. wrong analysis asking anew seem worthwhile costly. Unless exception, adhere strongest presumption away life, liberty, flexibility fringes cannot 58 "affect root except valid postponing event." 379, (1971) (footnote omitted). 59 Such necessarily includes public developed hostile confronted cross-examined. 60 Traditions fairness honored American jurisprudence possible approval duration7 uncross-examined untested Therefore, affirms I, like toto. provide: "Within her receipt [employer] documents explaining defending Within same meeting named accompanied counsel relating concerning case." 1978.103). concession, separate exclusively contractually mandated propriety essence purposes enforcing courts collateral-estoppel res judicata decisions boards. Under issues raised proceeding, reviewed Appeals. 1978.112) (interpreting concurrent jurisdiction boards agreements 274-275, length deemed complex rationale Additional hardship here indicate responsible extended But solely bureaucratic lethargy, defines diminishes interest—its agreement—is impaired cross-examination. (1970). weighty balanced wrongfully job. weight dispositive. dispute, inadequate either disposition follow heels determination. Ewing Mytinger Casselberry, 594, 870, 1088 (1950); North Cold Storage Chicago, 211 101, 195 (1908). Rule Civil Procedure 65(b) sense narrow taken. allows grant restraining (TRO) "if clearly appears" "immediate injury, loss, result" otherwise. TRO expires less, adversarial scheduled earliest time," taking precedence "all matters." (1976); Dixon Love, 431 105, 97 1723, 172 (1977). Cases dealing pretermination benefits, "new property," level exercises classic police power interfere transactions matters involving parties. involved" analysis, (1961), unique burdens face roles distributor benefits. 168, 1651, expanding Clause, cautious avoid diluting protections traditionally guaranteed unusual. According statistics, quicker—the average recent 102 recently promulgated 1978.104). matter figures considered, types fly mitigate termination. Speedy Trial demands criminal defendant tried indictment, appearance magistrate. 3161 et seq. (1982 ed. Supp. III). Is expedited trials feasible carriers confrontational impossible? concerned implications 267. concern, answer devoting resources program. forced bear agency's lethargy. worth pointing out wreak havoc driver's do. annual earnings $50,000 range, 37a, is, actually finds she relaxed typically involved objective issues, bit contexts, 113, 1727 (records traffic convictions); 344-345, 907 ("routine, standard, unbiased medical reports"), contexts poses undue hazards safety, Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 567-568, 2963, 2980, 935 (prison disciplinary hearings), institutional considerations, Goss Lopez, 419 565, 577-584, 729, 738-41, 725 (1975) (school suspensions). Additionally, offers excuse inordinate occurs (when reinstated) merits. Judge recommended seven 19-month elapsed explains, ante, ----, apparently routine independent striking down scheme.

Category: 3