Lyninger v. Casazza Trucking Co., ARB No. 02-113, ALJ No. 2001-STA-38 (ARB Feb. 19, 2004)

U.S. Department of Labor

Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210

ARB CASE NO. 02-113
ALJ CASE NO. 01-STA-38
DATE: February 19, 2004

In the Matter of:

JOHN LYNINGER,
    COMPLAINANT,

    v.

CASAZZA TRUCKING COMPANY,
    RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
    John Lyninger, pro se, Sun Valley, Nevada

For the Respondent:
    John Griffin, Esq., Allison, MacKenzie, Russell, Pavlakis, Wright & Fagan, Ltd., Carson City, Nevada

   This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982, as amended and recodified, 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 1997). Complainant John Lyninger alleges that Respondent Casazza Trucking Company violated the STAA when it discharged him in retaliation for complaining about the safety of Casazza's vehicles. A Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. & O.) in which he concluded that Lyninger did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discharged in retaliation for his safety complaints. Lyninger has requested review of this R. D. & O.

   The Secretary of Labor's jurisdiction to decide this matter by authority of 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(2)(C) has been delegated to the Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board). See Secretary's Order 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002). See also 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2002). When reviewing STAA cases the ARB is bound by the ALJ's factual findings if those findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3); BSP Trans, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 160 F.3d 38, 46 (1st Cir. 1998); Castle Coal & Oil Co., Inc. v. Reich, 55 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence is that which is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Herman, 146 F.3d 12, 21 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). In reviewing the ALJ's conclusions of law, the Board, as the designee of the Secretary, acts with "all the powers [the Secretary] would have in making the initial decision . . . ." 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 1996). Therefore, the Board reviews the ALJ's conclusions of law de novo. See Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dole, 929 F.2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991).

   We have reviewed the record and find that the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and are therefore conclusive. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3). The record also supports the ALJ's thorough, well-reasoned legal conclusions. Accordingly, we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the attached ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order and deny Lyninger's complaint.

   SO ORDERED.

      WAYNE C. BEYER
      Administrative Appeals Judge

      M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
      Chief Administrative Appeals Judge