1 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 1997) is the employee protection section of the STAA.
2See 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(a) (2002). The Secretary of Labor's authority to decide this case has been delegated to the Administrative Review Board. See 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(2)(C) and Secretary's Order 1-2002, 67 Fed Reg. 64272 (Oct. 17, 2002).
3 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3); BSP Transp., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 160 F.3d 38, 46 (1st Cir. 1998); Castle Coal & Oil Co. 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)).
4See Roadway Express v. Dole, 929 F. 2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991).
5See Williams v. Baltimore City Public Schools System, ARB No. 01-021, ALJ No. 00-CAA-15, n.7 (ARB May 30, 2003). See also Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 855-856 (9th Cir. 2002).
6 This decision is, however, strictly limited to the facts of the case. We do not hold that a complainant must invariably prove that the employer had certain knowledge of the complainant's protected activity. See Michaud v. BSP Transp., Inc., ARB No. 96-198, ALJ No. 95-STA-29, slip op. at 6-7 (ARB Jan. 6, 1997) (knowledge established by proof that employer suspected complainant was about to file a complaint).