Opinion ID: 444039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: review of the solicitor's analysis and recommendation

Text: 14 In reviewing the statement of reasons for nonenforcement of Moon's claim, we may consider only whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.... Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 416, 91 S.Ct. at 824 (citations omitted). The agency must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285, 95 S.Ct. 438, 442, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 245, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962)). While we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given, ... we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned. Bowman Transportation, 419 U.S. at 285-86, 95 S.Ct. at 441-42 (citations omitted). In summary, we must accord the agency considerable, but not too much deference; it is entitled to exercise its discretion but only so far and no further; and its decision need not be ideal or even, perhaps, correct so long as not 'arbitrary' or 'capricious' and so long as the agency gave at least minimal consideration to the relevant facts as contained in the record. American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 661 F.2d 340, 349 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). 10 15 After careful consideration of the record, we are unable to find any basis upon which to disapprove the findings and conclusions of the Secretary as stated in the recommendations of the Solicitor. The Solicitor's Office reviewed Moon's file twice, once after Moon was allowed to supplement it with additional information. The National Office of the OFCCP then reviewed the file again at the insistence of Moon and his attorney but agreed with the conclusions of the Solicitor. Moon attacks on appeal certain specific findings of the Solicitor's recommendation. None of his contentions, however, are relevant to the Secretary's ultimate finding that Roadway terminated Moon for reasons other than his handicap. See Record at 69 ([T]he evidence does tend to indicate that the company acted unwisely in terminating a long-term employee because of his effort to communicate to his superiors that a newly initiated sales program was unworkable, and the subsequent termination of such superiors tends to indicate that Mr. Moon was right.). We therefore hold as a matter of law that the findings of the Solicitor, upon which the Secretary based his decision not to challenge Roadway's termination of Moon, were neither arbitrary, capricious, nor otherwise contrary to law. 16 AFFIRMED.