Office of Administrative Law Judges Seven Parkway Center - Room
290 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
(412) 644-5754 (412) 644-5005 (FAX)
DATE: November 16, 2000
CASE NO.: 1999-STA-45
In the Matter of:
WILLIAM BAUMAN
Complainant
v.
U.S. CARGO AND COURIER SERVICE
Respondent
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER OF
DISMISSAL
The above-captioned matter arose upon a complaint filed by William
Bauman against the above- named Respondent under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act
of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C. § 31101, et seq., and the regulations promulgated
thereunder at 29 C.F.R., Part 1978, et seq. A formal hearing was held on October 4,
2000 in Cleveland, Ohio.
At the hearing counsel for the respondent moved that the claim be
dismissed because the complainant failed to establish that the STAA applies to this action.
(Hearing Record (HR) 84) Respondent's counsel argues that the respondent does not engage in
activity that involves commercial motor vehicles within the meaning of the STAA.
The pertinent statute reads:
A person may not discharge an employee, or discipline or discriminate
against an employee regarding pay, terms, or privileges of employment,
because the employee, or another person at the employee's request, 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
49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(A). As such, an essential part of the coverage of the STAA
involves the activity of "commercial motor vehicles." The term "commercial
motor vehicle" has been defined as "any self-propelled ... motor vehicle used on the
highway in commerce principally to transport passengers or cargo" with a gross weight
rating of ten thousand or more pounds. 44 U.S.C. app. § 2301(1).
[Page 2]
At the hearing the respondent called as a witness the Vice-President of
Risk Management and Human Resources for U.S. Cargo and Courier Service, Bobbie May
Gross, who testified that the trucks driven by the complainant in the course of his employment
did not exceed ten thousand pounds. (HR 57). Ms. Gross' testimony is supported by the State of
Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles registrations for the fleet of vehicles owned by the respondent.
(Respondent's Exhibit V). None of the vehicles registered to the respondent exceed ten thousand
pounds. This evidence was not contradicted by the complainant.
Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the complainant's allegations
of discrimination under the STAA. While the complainant presented an articulate and well-
reasoned argument, such allegations are not properly before this court.
IT IS ORDERED the respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
GERALD M. TIERNEY
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order and the administrative file in
this matter will be forwarded for review by the Administrative Review Board, U.S. Department
of Labor, Room S-4309, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. See 29
C.F.R. § 1978.109(a); 61 Fed. Reg. 19978 (1996).