U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
ARB NO. 97-148
ALJ CASE NOS. 97-STA-10
97-STA-19
DATE: January 20, 1998
In the Matter of:
WILLIAM E. GRIFFIN,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS
CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
d/b/a CF MOTORFREIGHT,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
This case arises under the employee protection provision of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C.A. §31105 (West 1996).
Complainant, William E. Griffin (Griffin), alleged that his employer, CF Motorfreight (CF),
violated the STAA when it removed him from driving duties, discontinued his pay, and
blacklisted him with another employer.1 In a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. and O.), the Administrative
[Page 2]
1 CF initially placed Griffin on
medical leave of absence with pay and later changed his status to medical leave of absence without pay.
2 "RX" refers to
Respondent's Exhibit; "CX" refers to Complainant's Exhibit, and "T." refers
to the transcript of hearing. Griffin appeared pro se and did not testify at the hearing. His
deposition is in the record as RX 4 and RX 34.
3 Case No. 96-STA-8 is pending
before this Board on review of a recommended decision and order by a different ALJ.
4 See R. D. and O. at 10-11 for the
ALJ's discussion of Griffin's unsuccessful attempt to delete the words, "we have to give them an
accident" as a transcription error. At the hearing in this case, Griffin accused CF of bribing the
recording company for including those words in the transcript. T. 178.
5 Stock explained to Griffin that the
results of the psychological tests and the clinical interview would be discussed in a report released to
CF and that the "normal psychologist/patient relationship is waived, confidentiality and privilege
do not exist." T. 51; RX 13. Stock also informed Griffin of the possible outcomes of the
psychological evaluation, including that he could be found temporarily unfit for duty, with mandatory
counseling prior to returning to work. T. 47, 52, 65-66; RX 13.
6 Stock spoke with Griffin on the
telephone about the test results, T. 78, and also sent him a requested written interpretation of the
psychological tests and forensic psychological evaluation. RX 28. Griffin said he did no receive the
letter and Stock resent it by certified mail. T. 78. There were three attempts to deliver the certified
letter but it was returned unclaimed. Id. Stock also sent a later certified letter but it too was
returned unopened. Id.
7 The STAA provides in relevant
part, 49 U.S.C.A. §31105(a)(1):
A person may not discharge an
employee, or discipline or discriminate against an employee regarding
pay, terms, or privileges of employment, because--
(A) the employee
. . . has filed a complaint or begun a proceeding related to a violation
of a commercial motor vehicle safety regulation, standard, or order, or
has testified or will testify in such a proceeding[.]
8 On the facts of this case, we find
that CF's letter advising Super Service that Griffin was on a medical leave of absence was not an
adverse action under the STAA. See R. D. and O. at 13. In addition, we find that CF did
not have a discriminatory motive in providing this information.
9 Griffin made other arguments in
his written "closing argument," filed post hearing, that we have considered and rejected.