DATE: July 14, 1987
CASE NO. 86-STA-18

IN THE MATTER OF

LEON B. DAVIS, JR.,
    COMPLAINANT,

    v.

H.R. HILL, INC.,
    RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

    On May 20, 1987, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) C. Richard Avery issued an Amended Recommended Decision and Order (Amended R.D. and O.) in the above-captioned case which arises under the employee protection provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305 (1982), which prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees who have engaged in certain protected activities. The ALJ's decision was in response to my Decision and Order of Remand, issued March 19, 1987, in which I instructed the ALJ to review the evidence in accordance with the applicable burdens of proof.

    In his Amended R.D. and O., the ALJ reviewed in detail the relevant record evidence, weighed the evidence, applied the proper burdens of proof, and concluded that Respondent Hill had

violated section 2305 of the STAA.

    Based on a thorough review of the record and the ALJ's Amended R.D. and O., I conclude that the ALJ's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are in accordance with law. I, therefore, accept the ALJ's findings and conclusions.¹ 51 Fed. Reg. 42,091 (1986) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978); see § 1978.109(c)(3).

    Accordingly, I adopt and append to this order ALJ Avery's Amended R.D. and O. of May 20, 1987.

    SO ORDERED.

       WILLIAM E. BROCK
       Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.

¹Although he applied the proper burdens of proof, the ALJ states at certain points in his decision that Respondent has the burden of proving that its termination of Complainant was motivated solely by complainant's unprotected conduct. Amended R.D. and O. at 4 and 6. These statements do not describe accurately Respondent's burden, which is to establish that, even though it was motivated in part by Complainant's protected conduct, it would nevertheless have terminated Complainant because of his unprotected conduct.