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,
    COMPLAINANT

   v.

RIVER VALLEY PAPER COMPANY,
    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,

Once the respondent produces evidence that the complainant was subjected to adverse action for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the rebuttable presumption created by complainant's prima facie showing "drops from the case." Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255, n.10. Once the respondent has presented his rebuttal evidence, the answer to the question whether the plaintiff presented a prima facie case is no longer particularly useful. "The [trier of fact] has before it all the evidence it needs to determine whether 'the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.'" USPS Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. [711] [1983] at 715 (quoting Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. [248] [1981] at 253).

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.