Opinion ID: 4022536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The STAA Claim

Text: The complaint provision of the STAA prohibits an employer from discharging an employee because the employee “has filed a complaint or begun a proceeding related to a violation of a commercial motor vehicle safety or security regulation, standard, or order.” 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(A)(I). The ARB upheld the ALJ’s finding that Maddin engaged in protected activity under this provision when he notified TransAm about the frozen brakes, concluding the finding was 2 TransAm has not argued that the ARB’s legal conclusions are not entitled to Chevron deference because its decision is not “binding precedent within the agency.” Efagene v. Holder, 642 F.3d 918, 920 (10th Cir. 2011). -7- supported by substantial evidence. TransAm challenges the ARB’s conclusion that “uncorrected vehicle defects, such as faulty brakes, violate safety regulations and reporting a defective vehicle falls squarely within the definition of protected activity under STAA.” TransAm argues Maddin’s report of frozen brakes is not a complaint of the type the STAA seeks to protect because Maddin was simply communicating a concern about defective brakes, a condition that in and of itself does not constitute a violation of any statute or regulation. It is unnecessary to resolve this issue because the ARB’s ruling can be affirmed under an alternative provision of the STAA also relied upon by the ARB. That alternative provision is codified at 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B)(ii) and makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee who “refuses to operate a vehicle because . . . the employee has a reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or the public because of the vehicle’s hazardous safety or security condition.” For an employee’s apprehension of serious injury to be reasonable, the employee must show that a reasonable individual in the employee’s circumstances “would conclude that the hazardous safety or security condition establishes a real danger of accident, injury, or serious impairment to health.” Id. § 31105(a)(2). An employee seeking protection under this provision must also show that he “sought from the employer, and [was] unable to obtain, correction of the hazardous safety or security condition.” Id. TransAm does not dispute that Maddin had a reasonable apprehension of serious injury if he either -8- stayed with the trailer or dragged the trailer down the highway. Neither does TransAm dispute that the trailer’s frozen brakes were unsafe and Maddin, who had been waiting more than three hours in freezing temperatures in an unheated truck, was unable to obtain correction of the unsafe condition. The ARB agreed with the ALJ’s finding that Maddin engaged in protected activity under this provision when he unhooked the trailer and “refused to operate the truck under the conditions set by Mr. [C]luck.” TransAm argues that because Maddin drove the truck after being instructed to “stay put,” he actually operated his vehicle and the ARB erred by concluding his conduct fell within the “refusal to operate” provision of the STAA. Because we are reviewing the DOL’s interpretation of a statute it administers, we begin by asking “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842. Here, the term “operate” is not defined in the statute. “If . . . Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation.” Id. at 843 (footnote omitted). Instead, we examine “whether the agency’s [interpretation] is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. TransAm’s argument equates the term “operate,” as used in the statute, with driving. However, TransAm has not directed this court to any authority for the proposition that Congress intended the refusal-to-operate provision of the -9- STAA to be interpreted so narrowly, and has not explained how such a narrow interpretation furthers the purposes of the STAA. The ARB interpreted the term “operate” to encompass not only driving, but other uses of a vehicle when it is within the control of the employee. 3 Thus, under the ARB’s interpretation, the refusal-to-operate provision could cover a situation in which an employee refuses to use his vehicle in the manner directed by his employer even if that refusal results in the employee driving the vehicle. Thus, by way of example, an employee who partially unloads an overweight trailer in direct contravention of his employer’s instruction to continue pulling the overweight trailer on the public roadways, has refused to operate the vehicle for purposes of the STAA even if the employee completes the trip after unloading the trailer. See Beveridge v. Waste Stream Envtl., Inc., ARB No. 97-137, 1997 WL 806522, at  (ARB Dec. 23, 1997). Similarly, an employee who moves a disabled trailer from the middle of a busy roadway to the shoulder of the road after being told by his employer to remain in the roadway, has refused to operate his vehicle for purposes of the STAA whistle-blower protection under the interpretation of § 31105(a)(1)(B)(ii) adopted by the ARB. The STAA was enacted, inter alia, to “promote the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles,” “to minimize dangers to the health of operators of 3 The language used by the ARB—particularly its statement that “‘a refusal to operate’ may encompass actually operating a vehicle”—is somewhat confusing, but its meaning is clear when read in context. -10- commercial motor vehicles,” and “to ensure increased compliance with traffic laws and with . . . commercial motor vehicle safety and health regulations and standards.” 49 U.S.C. § 31131(a). The STAA’s whistle-blower provisions were enacted to “encourage employee reporting of noncompliance with safety regulations governing commercial motor vehicles.” Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 U.S. 252, 258 (1987). The ARB’s interpretation of § 31105(a)(1)(B)(ii) furthers the purpose of the STAA by prohibiting an employer from discharging an insubordinate employee whose insubordination was motivated by the employee’s reasonable apprehension of serious injury to himself or members of the public. Thus, we defer to the DOL’s interpretation that the term “operate” as used in § 31105(a)(1)(B) is not coextensive with the term “drive.” 4 4 The dissent takes issue with our application of Chevron to the question before us, deeming it an “uninvited foray into step two of Chevronland.” Dissenting Op. at 2. We received our invitation from TransAm in its opening brief. Appellant Br. at 13 n.5. TransAm, the appellant in this matter, relied on Chevron to argue the ARB’s construction of the STAA should be rejected. The dissent further criticizes us for moving to the second prong of the Chevron analysis after concluding the term “operate” is not defined in the statute. The dissent believes Congress’s intent can be easily determined by simply choosing a favorite dictionary definition of the word and applying that to quickly conclude the statute is not ambiguous at all. However, in addition to not defining the term “operate,” Congress also did not unambiguously express its intent with regard to the definition of the term. See United States v. Seminole Nation of Okla., 321 F.3d 939, 944 (10th Cir. 2002). Thus, the only way to resolve the matter we have been asked by TransAm to review is to move to Chevron’s second step. Even if we disregard TransAm’s request that we analyze this case using the Chevron paradigm and employ the analysis used by the dissent, we would still reach the same conclusion. We, too, have found a dictionary definition of the (continued...) -11- Having concluded the ARB’s interpretation of § 31105(a)(1)(B)(ii) is a permissible construction of the statute, we also conclude the ARB’s finding that Maddin engaged in STAA-protected activity when he unhitched the trailer and drove off in the truck is supported by substantial evidence. Here, Mr. Cluck instructed Maddin to either drive his truck while dragging the trailer or stay with the trailer on the side of the roadway until the repairperson arrived. Maddin refused to obey either instruction given by Mr. Cluck and, instead, unhooked the truck from the trailer and drove off, leaving the trailer unattended—the very thing Mr. Cluck ordered him not to do. As to Maddin’s refusal to drag the trailer, TransAm argues that dragging the trailer was a “ridiculous alternative option” and, thus, Maddin could not refuse to operate his vehicle under the conditions set by his employer because it was impossible to do so. TransAm’s argument is unpersuasive. First, both the ALJ and the ARB accepted Maddin’s uncontroverted testimony that Mr. Cluck 4 (...continued) word “operate” and discovered it means to “control the functioning of.” Operate, Oxford Dictionaries Pro, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/operate (last visited July 8, 2016). This definition clearly encompasses activities other than driving. For that reason, the dissent’s conclusion that a truck driver is “operating” his truck when he refuses to drive it but not when he refuses to remain in control of it while awaiting its repair, is curious. The only logical explanation is that the dissent has concluded Congress used the word “operate” in the statute when it really meant “drive.” We are more comfortable limiting our