U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20210
ARB CASE NO. 98-165
ALJ CASE NO. 97-STA-33
DATE: April 16, 1999
In the Matter of:
ARTIS ANDERSON,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
EAGLE CARRIERS, LTD.,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the Complainant:
Artis Anderson, West
Somerset, Kentucky, Pro Se.
For the Respondent:
Richard A. Whitaker, Esq.,
Nicholasville, Kentucky
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) submitted a decision (R. D. & O.) in this
case arising under the employee protection provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act
[Page 2]
of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C.A. §31105 (West 1994), recommending that the complaint be
dismissed because Complainant, Artis Anderson, did not carry his burden of proving that the
Respondent, Eagle Carriers, Ltd., discriminated against him for protected activities. The record in
this case has been reviewed. We agree with the ALJ's conclusion, and dismiss the complaint.
1 The ALJ found that Complainant
worked for Respondent until January 1996, R. D. & O. at 2, but Complainant testified that he quit
after the second incident of delay in unloading freight in June 1995. T. (Transcript of hearing) 15.
2 The ALJ found that Complainant
did not prove that he made internal safety complaints. See R. D. & O. at 5 n.2.
3 The original complaint to OSHA
is not in the record.
4 There is contradictory evidence
in the record regarding the date Complainant resigned. The OSHA determination letter states he
resigned "approximately the third week of January 1996," but Complainant testified that
he resigned after the Winchester incident "around the 1st of June [1995]." T. 15.
5 The ALJ analyzed this case in terms
of whether Complainant had established a prima facie case. But as the Secretary and the
Board have repeatedly held, once a case has been fully tried on the merits, the trier of fact can decide
the ultimate question of whether the Complainant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that retaliation was a motivating factor in the adverse action taken against him. Once a case has been
tried on the merits, determining whether Complainant has established a prima facie case no
longer serves any useful purpose. See Carroll v. Bechtel Power Corp., Case No. 91-ERA-0046, Sec'y. Dec. Feb. 15, 1995, slip op. at 8-12.
6 Thus, we need not reach the
question whether Respondent's filing of an action in small claims court constituted adverse action
against Complainant.