Court Opinion

ID: 9351580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-02 00:00:24.661405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:00:53.265161
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2097      Doc: 19         Filed: 12/30/2022    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2097

        BRIAN HEYWARD,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; BENORE LOGISTIC SYSTEM, INC.,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Labor. (ARB 2021-0023)

        Submitted: October 31, 2022                                 Decided: December 30, 2022

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brian Heyward, Petitioner Pro Se. Johnda Diane Bentley, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Alvin Jack Finklea, III, SCOPELITIS
        GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, PC, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Respondents.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2097      Doc: 19         Filed: 12/30/2022      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Brian Heyward petitions for review of the Administrative Review Board’s (ARB)

        final decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision and

        order dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to the Surface Transportation Assistance Act

        of 1982 (“STAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 31105, and the ARB’s order denying Heyward’s motion

        to reconsider. We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part.

               “Under the scheme established by Congress, the Secretary of Labor makes final

        determinations on [STAA] violations subject to appellate court review.” Calhoun v. U.S.

        Dep’t of Labor, 576 F.3d 201, 208 (4th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); see also 49 U.S.C.

        § 31105(d) (establishing appellate court review).       “When reviewing the Secretary’s

        determination, we are bound by his legal conclusions unless they are arbitrary, capricious,

        an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and by his factual findings

        if they are supported by substantial evidence.” Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Reich, 8 F.3d

        980, 984 (4th Cir. 1993) (cleaned up). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as

        a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Pac Tell Grp., Inc.

        v. NLRB, 817 F.3d 85, 90 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing

        the Secretary’s ultimate decision, “[w]e are mindful . . . of the deference due the

        Secretary’s interpretation of a statute Congress charged him with administering.” Yellow

        Freight Sys., 8 F.3d at 984.

               As pertinent here, the STAA prohibits an employer from discharging an employee

        because the employee has engaged in certain enumerated protected activities. 49 U.S.C.

        § 31105(a)(1). To prevail on a claim under § 31105(a)(1), a complainant must first

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2097      Doc: 19          Filed: 12/30/2022     Pg: 3 of 3

        “establish a prima facie case that (1) he engaged in protected activity, (2) his employer

        took adverse employment action against him, and (3) there is a causal relationship between

        his protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Calhoun, 576 F.3d at 209. If

        the complainant establishes his prima facie case, “[t]he burden then shifts to his employer

        to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.” Id. If the

        employer does so, “the complainant bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating by a

        preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons were a pretext for [retaliation].”

        Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Liberally construing Heyward’s informal brief to challenge the ARB’s order

        dismissing his complaint, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), we have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore deny the petition as to that

        order. And to the extent that Heyward seeks review of the ARB’s denial of his motion to

        reconsider, that order is not subject to judicial review. See, e.g., Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep’t

        of Homeland Sec., 924 F.3d 684, 700 (4th Cir. 2019). We therefore dismiss that portion of

        the petition for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

        legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

        would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                     PETITION DENIED IN PART,
                                                                            DISMISSED IN PART

                                                      3