DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Thomas v. Hall Express, ARB No. 00-083, ALJ No. 2000- STA-43 (ARB Nov. 15, 2000) |
Thomas v. Hall Express, ARB No. 00- 083, ALJ No. 2000-STA-43 (ARB Nov. 15, 2000)
U.S. Department of Labor | Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 | ![]() |
ARB CASE NO. 00-083
ALJ CASE NO. 00-STA-43
DATE: November 15, 2000
In the Matter of:
RONALD J. THOMAS,
v.
HALL EXPRESS,
COMPLAINANT,
RESPONDENT.
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act ("STAA"), as amended and recodified, 49 U.S.C. §31105 (1994). The relevant facts in this case are as follows. Respondent hired Ronald Thomas as a truck driver on September 27, 1999, and fired him less than four months later for unsatisfactory performance. Thomas subsequently filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging that Respondent actually fired him because he reported a safety defect (i.e., a bald tire) on Respondent's vehicle. In view of the allegedly retaliatory nature of his termination, Thomas argued that Respondent violated the employee protection provisions of the STAA which state, in relevant part:
49 U.S.C. §31105(a).
Ultimately, this matter was referred to an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") who held an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, Becky Grier testified on behalf of Respondent. Grier stated that she summoned Thomas to her office on Monday, January 10, 2000, to give him a written warning regarding his repeated tardiness in reporting for work and failure to answer his pager while out on the road. According to Grier, when she met with Thomas, she was unaware that he had filed a faulty tire report on the previous Friday. Grier went on to state that, when she presented Thomas with the written warning, he became belligerent and refused to sign it. It was at that point that Grier fired him. Based on Grier's testimony, the ALJ found that Respondent terminated Thomas because of his belligerence and not because he reported safety defects in Respondent's vehicles. In light of that finding, the ALJ concluded that Respondent did not violate the employee protection provisions of the STAA. Therefore, by Recommended Decision and Order ("RD&O") dated September 19, 2000, the ALJ recommended that Thomas' complaint be denied.
The decision of the ALJ is now before the Administrative Review Board pursuant to the automatic review procedures under 29 C.F.R. §1978.109 (c) (1) (1999). Section 1978.109 (c)(2) permits both parties to file a brief in support of their respective positions within thirty days of the issuance of the ALJ's decision. Neither party has elected to file a brief.
In the RD&O, the ALJ stated:
Thomas has not identified any error in the ALJ's reasoning, nor do we see any. Accordingly, we find that Thomas has failed to establish that his termination violated the employee protection of the STAA and concur with the ALJ's recommendation that the complaint should be denied.
SO ORDERED
E. COOPER BROWN
Member
CYNTHIA L. ATTWOOD
Member
RICHARD A. BEVERLY
Alternate Member