ARB CASE NO. 05-042
ALJ CASE NO. 04-STA-7
DATE: August 25, 2006
RICHARD
SMITH, JR.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
JORDAN CARRIERS,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE:
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REIVEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the
Complainant:
Richard
Smith, Jr., pro se, Marshall, Texas
For the
Respondent:
Bruce M. Kuehnle, Jr., Law Office of Bruce M. Kuehnle, Jr.,
PLLC, Natchez, Mississippi
FINAL
DECISION AND ORDER
This case arises under
the employee protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act
(STAA) of 1982, as amended and recodified, 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 1997).
Richard Smith, Jr. alleges that his former employer, Jordan Carriers, Inc.,
violated the STAA when it fired him after he complained about faulty brakes on
the truck he was assigned to drive. A Department of Labor Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and Order dismissing Smith’s claim
because he concluded that Jordan did not fire Smith but that Smith chose to
sever his employment for reasons other than the faulty brakes. The ALJ’s
decision is before the Administrative Review Board pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1978.109(c)(1)’s automatic review procedures. We affirm the ALJ’s Recommended
Decision and Order.
[Page 2]
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We
have jurisdiction to decide this matter by authority of 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(2)(C)
(West 1997) and 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2005). Under the STAA, the
Administrative Review Board is bound by the ALJ’s factual findings if substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole supports those findings. 29
C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3); BSP Transp., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 160 F.3d 38, 46 (1st Cir. 1998); Castle
Coal & Oil Co., Inc. v. Reich, 55 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 1995). 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)). In reviewing
the ALJ’s conclusions of law, the Board, as the Secretary’s designee, acts with
“all the powers [the Secretary] would have in making the initial decision . . .
.” 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 1996). See also 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(b). Therefore,
the Board reviews the ALJ’s conclusions of law de novo. Roadway Express,
Inc. v. Dole, 929 F.2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991).
DECISION
The
ALJ’s decision thoroughly and fairly recites the relevant facts underlying this
dispute. We have reviewed the record and find that substantial evidence on the
record as a whole supports the ALJ’s factual findings. Those findings are
therefore conclusive. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3). The ALJ’s decision is in
accordance with law. Accordingly, we adopt and attach the ALJ’s Recommended
Decision and Order and DENY Smith’s complaint.
SO
ORDERED.
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
