1 The caption is corrected to reflect
Respondent's proper name and spelling. See Respondent's post-trial brief, Dec. 9, 1996,
at 1; Respondent's trial brief, Sept. 23, 1996, at 1; Respondent's objections to Complainant's statement
of issues and witness list, June 6, 1996, at 1.
2 The ALJ denied Griffin's request
to amend his complaint to include his removal from service pending mandatory psychological
counseling. R. D. and O. at 4-6. This matter became the subject of a separate STAA proceeding,
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, where
we found that "the decision to assess Griffin's fitness under the motor carrier regulations was both
legitimate and prudent, as expert opinion bore out." Id. at 8.
3 Since this case was fully tried on
the merits, whether Griffin made a prima facie showing, R. D. and O. at 26-30, is
irrelevant. U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715 (1983);
Frechin v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., ARB Case No. 97-147, ALJ Case No. 96-STA-34, ARB Fin. Dec. and Ord., Jan. 13, 1998, slip op. at 1; Beveridge v. Waste Stream
Environmental, Inc., ARB Fin. Dec. and Ord. of Dism., Dec. 23, 1997, slip op. at 3 n.4 and
cases cited.