Accordingly, we adopt and attach the ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order and DENY Taylor's complaint.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
DAVID G. DYE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A (West Supp. 2005). Regulations implementing the SOX are found at 29 C.F.R. § Part 1980 (2006).
2 See Secretary's Order 1-2002 (Delegation of Authority and Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 67 Fed. Reg. 64272 (Oct. 17, 2002). See also 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110.
3 See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(b).
4 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). See also Getman v. Sw. Sec., Inc. ARB No. 04-059, ALJ No. 2003-SOX-8, slip op. at 7 (ARB July 29, 2005).
5 Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951). See also Henrich v. Ecolab, Inc., ARB No. 05-030, ALJ No. 04-SOX-51 (ARB June 29, 2006).
6 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 1996).
7 See Getman, slip op. at 7.
8 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A(a).
9 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A(b)(2)(C).
10 See 49 U.S.C.A. § 42121 (a) – (b)(2)(B) (iii) – (iv). See also Getman, slip op. at 8; Peck v. Safe Air Int'l, Inc. d/b/a Island Express, ARB No. 02-028, ALJ No. 2001-AIR-3, slip op. at 6-10 (ARB Jan. 30, 2004).
11 See § 42121(a)-(b)(2)(B)(iv). See also Getman, slip op. at 8.
12 We note, however, that there is one error in the ALJ's decision: his conclusion "that a close proximity between an employee's alleged protected activity and her termination may in certain circumstances be sufficient to establish retaliatory intent." R. D. & O. at 12. Temporal proximity does not establish retaliatory intent, but may establish the causal connection component of the prima facie case. The ultimate burden of persuasion that the respondent intentionally discriminated because of complainant's protected activity remains at all times with the complainant. Martin v. United Parcel Ser., ARB No. 05-040, ALJ No. 2003-STA-9, slip op. at 9 (ARB May 31, 2007). This error had no effect on the outcome of the case and is therefore harmless.