On January 28, 2003, a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. & O.) dismissing Olson's complaint. The R. D. & O. is now before the Administrative Review Board (ARB) pursuant to 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(2)(C) and 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(1)(2003).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the STAA, the ARB is bound by the factual findings of the ALJ if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3); Lyninger v. Casazza Trucking Co., ARB No. 02-113, ALJ No. 01-STA-38, slip op. at 2 (ARB Feb. 19, 2004). 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. v. Herman , 146 F.3d 12, 21 (1st Cir. 1998), quoting Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); McDede v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. , ARB No. 03-107, ALJ No. 03-STA-12, slip op. at 3 (ARB Feb. 27, 2004).
In reviewing the ALJ's conclusions of law, the ARB, as the designee of the Secretary, acts with "all the powers [the Secretary] would have in making the initial decision . . .." 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 2004). Therefore, we review the ALJ's conclusions of law de novo. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dole , 929 F.2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991); Monde v. Roadway Express, Inc. , ARB No. 02-071, ALJ Nos. 01-STA-22, 01-STA-29, slip op. at 2 (ARB Oct. 31, 2003).
DISCUSSION
To prevail on a claim under the STAA, the complainant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he engaged in protected activity, that his employer was aware of the protected activity, that the employer discharged, disciplined, or discriminated against him, and that there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. BSP Trans, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor , 160 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 1998); Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Reich , 27 F.3d 1133, 1138 (6th Cir. 1994); Schwartz v. Young's Commercial Transfer, Inc. , ARB No. 02-122, ALJ No. 01-STA-33, slip op. at 8-9 (Oct. 31, 2003).
The ALJ determined that Olson was not credible in testifying about the condition and weight of the truck-tanker he was employed to drive. R. D. & O. at 14. Furthermore, he found that Olson failed to prove that he engaged in protected activity on April 23, 2001, when he refused to continue to drive his truck. R. D. & O. at 15-20. The ALJ also found that Olson failed to prove that Hi-Valley fired him. R. D. & O. at 21-22. And the ALJ found that even if both protected activity and adverse action had occurred, Olson failed to prove that Hi-Valley retaliated against him for the protected activity. R. D. & O. at 22. Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed Olson's complaint. Id.
We have reviewed the record and find that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the ALJ's findings. They are therefore conclusive. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3). See R. D. & O. at 4-14, and record citations therein. The record also supports the ALJ's credibility determinations. In his thorough, well-reasoned discussion, he applied the correct legal standard to his findings. Therefore, we adopt the ALJ's decision, attach and incorporate the R. D. & O and DENY Olsen's complaint.2
SO ORDERED .
OLIVER M. TRANSUE Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1
2
