U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
ARB CASE NO. 98-066
ALJ CASE NO. 97-STA-25
DATE: February 10, 1998
In the Matter of:
WILLIAM E. GRIFFIN, JR.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS
CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
d/b/a CF MOTORFREIGHT,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case arises under the employee protection provision of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), 49 U.S.C. §31105 (a)(1)(A) (1994), prohibiting
adverse employment action against an employee for filing a complaint or commencing a
proceeding relating to a violation of a commercial motor vehicle safety regulation, standard, or
order. Complainant, William E. Griffin, Jr. (Griffin), alleges that Respondent, Consolidated
Freightways (CF), blacklisted him with various other trucking firms in reprisal for filing STAA
discrimination complaints. Following rejection of his claim by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Griffin filed an appeal requesting a hearing
before the Office of Administrative Law Judges.
[Page 2]
The matter did not progress to the hearing stage. Instead, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. and O.)
dismissing Griffin's complaint because "the Complainant has failed to respond to any of
the [ALJ's] orders and has been uncooperative in other aspects of the pretrial stage. . . ."
R. D. and O. at 4-5.1
1 The R. D. and O. at 1-2 refers to
two other ALJ proceedings involving these parties. The Board has recently decided these cases adversely
to Griffin. Griffin v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware d/b/a CF Motorfreight, ARB
Case No. 97-148, ALJ Case Nos. 97-STA-10, 97-STA-19, ARB Fin. Dec. and Ord., Jan. 20, 1998;
Griffin v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware d/b/a CF Motorfreight, ARB Case No.
98-065, ALJ Case No. 96-STA-8, ARB Fin. Dec. and Ord. of Dism., Feb. 3, 1998.
2 Line 5 of the ALJ's indented
quotation from 29 C.F.R. §18.6(d)(2), R. D. and O. at 4, should read "may take such
action" instead of "may take action."