ARB CASE NO. 01-065
ALJ CASE NO. 98-STA-8
DATE: May 29, 2003
In the Matter of:
CLARENCE SCOTT,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the Complainant:
Philip L. Harmon, Esq., Worthington, Ohio
For the Respondent:
Barbara J. Leukart, Esq., Johanna Fabrizio Parker, Esq., Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, Ohio
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE
Clarence Scott, a truck driver, complained that Respondent Roadway Express, Inc. violated the employee protection provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C. § 31105 (2000). On July 28, 1999, the Administrative Review Board issued a Final Decision and Order (D. & O.) affirming the Administrative Law Judge's holding that Roadway had not disciplined Scott in retaliation for making safety complaints and had not terminated his employment because he refused to drive while ill. However, the ARB also affirmed the ALJ's ruling that Roadway violated the STAA when it issued disciplinary warnings to him for refusing to drive while sick. Accordingly, Roadway was required to "[p]ost copies of the Notice of Findings (Appendix A), attached to this Final Decision and Order, for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places in and about its Akron facility so that drivers may read it."1[Page 2]
1 The Notice of Findings states: "Roadway's Akron facility has issued letters of warning to drivers who take one or more sick day(s) because their ability or alertness to drive is so impaired, or so likely to become impaired through fatigue, illness, or any other cause, as to make it unsafe for the drivers to begin or continue to operate the motor vehicle, but who have no personal vacation days, sick leave, or annual leave days available and do not qualify for family medical leave. This policy violated the Surface Transportation Assistance Act in this matter. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act does not preclude Roadway Express, Inc. from establishing mechanisms for assuring that a claimed illness is legitimate or serious enough to warrant a protected refusal to drive." D. & O., Appendix A.