Opinion ID: 755555
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Work Refusal Clause: STAA Section 405(b)

Text: 27 The Secretary also found a violation of Section 405(b) of the STAA, 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305(b), the so-called work refusal clause, which bars discrimination against an employee by reason of his refusal to work in illegal or unsafe conditions. The pertinent portion of the statute, known as the because clause, prohibits the employer from discharging or discriminating against an employee for refusing to operate or utilize a vehicle because of the employee's reasonable apprehension of serious injury to himself or the public due to the unsafe condition of such equipment. STAA § 405(b), 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305(b). The statute explains its standards as follows: 28 The unsafe conditions causing the employee's apprehension of injury must be of such nature that a reasonable person, under the circumstances then confronting the employee, would conclude that there is a bona fide danger of an accident, injury, or serious impairment of health, resulting from the unsafe condition. In order to qualify for protection under this subsection, the employee must have sought from his employer, and have been unable to obtain, correction of the unsafe condition. 29 STAA § 405(b), 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305(b). Therefore, in order to make out his case, Caimano must establish that (i) he refused to operate # 201 because he was apprehensive of an unsafe condition of the vehicle; (ii) his apprehension was objectively reasonable; (iii) he sought to have Brinks correct the condition; and (iv) Brinks failed to do so. 30 The Secretary found that Caimano had established a violation on two bases: the lack of a portable radio set and the presence of gas fumes in the rear compartment of the truck. 31
32 The ALJ rejected Caimano's claim relating to the lack of a portable radio for two reasons: first, that the provision of portable radio communication between driver and messenger was not a requirement of the STAA, and, second, that when Caimano complained of the absence of a radio set, Brinks cured the problem by offering to provide one. (JA 19) The ALJ therefore found that, at least following the offer to cure, Caimano's safety concern was not objectively reasonable. We need not discuss the first question because, on the record, the ALJ's finding with respect to the second was clearly supported by substantial evidence and should thus have been considered conclusive. 33 The evidence at the hearing showed that, on hearing Caimano's complaint of the absence of a radio, Dawson offered to provide a radio set. When Caimano continued to refuse to work contending that the radio batteries would run down, Dawson offered to deliver a fully charged replacement set that would maintain its charge through the expected course of the run. Caimano nonetheless continued to refuse. There was thus undoubtedly substantial support for the ALJ's rejection of Ciamano's claim. The evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that Caimano's presentation of his case as a matter of safety concerns was a restructured scenario and that in actual fact he was merely a somewhat disgruntled overly complaining individual, who was properly fired solely on the basis of [his] insubordination.In order to make out his case under the because clause of Section 405(b), Caimano was required to show both that his apprehension of an unsafe condition was objectively reasonable and that, despite seeking a correction of the condition, he was unable to obtain correction. The ALJ's properly supported finding that Caimano failed to sustain this burden must be considered conclusive under the standards of the STAA. The Secretary's decision must therefore be set aside. 34
35 There was no violation of the because clause with respect to Caimano's belatedly alleged apprehension of fuel fumes in the rear compartment of # 201. On April 21, at the time of his work refusal, Caimano elaborately and repeatedly raised his concerns about the lack of radios and other matters, but made no mention whatsoever of fuel fumes. Brinks could not have responded to safety concerns that were not called to its attention. The because clause requires that an employee must have sought from his employer, and have been unable to obtain, correction of the unsafe condition. STAA § 405(b). 7