Although this evidence shows a change in his work record, White submitted no evidence demonstrating that Hunt intentionally disseminated any information that caused the change.
Because White failed to adduce evidence countering Hunt's affidavit and pleadings, he has raised no genuine issue of material fact regarding an essential element of his claim: that Hunt subjected him to an adverse employment action because he engaged in STAA-protected activity. Therefore, all other facts alleged by White are immaterial, and Hunt is entitled to summary decision.
CONCLUSION
White has not presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact that Hunt intentionally retaliated against him because he engaged in STAA-protected activity, an essential element of his case. Hunt is therefore entitled to summary decision.
[Page 7]
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the R. D. & O. granting Hunt's Motion and DENY White's complaint.
SO ORDERED.
WAYNE C. BEYER
Administrative Appeals Judge
DAVID G. DYE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2008). The STAA has been amended since White filed his complaint. See Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, P.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007). We need not decide here whether the amendments are applicable to this complaint because even if the amendments applied to this complaint, they are not implicated by the summary judgment issue presented here and thus, would not affect our decision.
2 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2007).
3 White v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., ARB No. 04-118, ALJ No. 2003-STA-44 (ARB Jan. 25, 2005).
4 See Settlement Agreement, ¶ 13.
5 Complaint at 1.
6 Secretary's Findings at 2.
7 Response, Exhibits F and I.
8 R. D. & O. at 3.
9 Secretary's Order No. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(1).
10 29 C.F.R. § 18.40 (2006).
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); 29 C.F.R. § 18.40(d); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
12 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
13 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
14 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
15 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
16 29 C.F.R. § 18.40(c); see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
17 Motion at 5 (emphasis omitted).
18 Id. at 5-6.
19 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(d).
20 See, e.g., Taylor v. Greyhound Lines, ARB No. 06-137, ALJ No. 2006-STA-19, slip op. at 4 (ARB Apr. 30, 2007) (also noting that the Secretary has not delegated to the Board her authority to bring actions in district court to enforce STAA settlements).
21 See, e.g., Floyd v. Bavarian Motor Transp., ARB No. 04-106, ALJ No. 2003-STA-52, slip op. at 2 (ARB July 22, 2004) (release of claims pursuant to a settlement agreement is interpreted as limiting the complainant's right to sue on matters "arising only out of facts, or any set of facts, occurring before the date of the settlement agreement").
22 See Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2 ("It is the specific intent and purpose of J.B. Hunt and White to release and discharge each other from any and all claims and causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever, which may exist or might be claimed to exist at or prior to the date hereof …").
23 See, e.g., Ramirez v. Frito-Lay, Inc., ARB No. 06-025, ALJ No. 2005-STA-37, slip op. at 5 (ARB Nov. 30, 2006); Murphy, slip op. at 4; Anderson v. Jaro Transp. Servs., ARB No. 05-011, ALJ Nos. 2004-STA-2 and 3, slip op. at 6 (ARB Nov. 30, 2005).
24 We have held that "[b]lacklisting occurs when an individual or a group of individuals acting in concert disseminates damaging information that affirmatively prevents another person from finding employment." See, e.g., Murphy v. Atlas Motor Coaches, Inc., ARB No. 05-055, ALJ No. 2004-STA-36, slip op. at 5 (ARB July 31, 2006).
25 Ridgley v. C. J. Dannemiller, ARB No. 05-063, ALJ No. 2004-STA-053, slip op. at 5 (ARB May 24, 2007).
26 Affidavit of Susan Dietz, ¶ 4.
27 Id., ¶ 5.
28 Response, Exhibits F and I.