DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Stopak v. River Valley Paper Co., ARB No. 00-001, ALJ No. 1999-STA-10 (ARB Dec. 30, 1999) |
Stopak v. River Valley Paper Co., ARB No. 00-001, ALJ No. 1999-STA-10 (ARB Dec. 30, 1999)
U.S. Department of Labor | Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 | ![]() |
ARB CASE NO. 00-001
ALJ CASE NO. 99-STA-10
DATE: December 30, 1999
In the Matter of:
ROBERT S. STOPAK,
v.
RIVER VALLEY PAPER COMPANY,
COMPLAINANT
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), 49 U.S.C. §31105 (1994). The Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. and O.) finding that Respondent
River Valley Paper Company did not discriminate against Complainant Robert Stopak when it
discharged him from his position as a tractor-trailer operator. Stopak v. River Valley Paper
Company, 1999-STA-10 (Oct. 27, 1999). The ALJ carefully analyzed the evidence in the case
and found that Respondent's president, who made the decision to fire Complainant, had no
knowledge of Complainant's asserted protected activity.1 R. D. and O. at 4. No briefs in support of or in opposition to the R. D. and O. have
been filed. We adopt the Recommended Decision with the modification discussed below and we
dismiss the complaint.
Although this case was fully tried on the merits, the ALJ focused his analysis
on whether Complainant had made out a prima facie case. As the Secretary and the
Administrative Review Board have held many times,
Carroll v. Bechtel Power Corp., Case No. 91-ERA-46, Sec'y. Dec. (Feb. 15, 1995), slip op.
at 11. Here, Complainant did not carry his burden of proof because he did not show that the
management official of Respondent who made the decision to terminate his employment was aware
of Complainant's protected activity. For this reason, we adopt the ALJ's recommended decision with
the modification discussed above and the complaint in this case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
PAUL GREENBERG
E. COOPER BROWN
1 The ALJ also found that Complainant
did not engage in activity protected by the STAA but continued to analyze the facts on the
assumption that Complainant did make a complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration about unsafe brakes on the trailers. R. D. and O. at 4.
[Page 2]
Chair
Member