But Dalton involved a nearly five-year delay due to protracted litigation, a situation that has not
[Page 17]
occurred here. Therefore, we deny the request for a fee enlargement.
Conclusion
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings that Carter engaged in STAA-protected activity and that Marten terminated him because of that activity. The record also supports a finding that Marten would not have terminated Carter for other reasons. Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the remedies that the ALJ recommended. Therefore, since Marten has violated the STAA, Carter is entitled to the remedies we have discussed.
SO ORDERED.
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief, Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2007). Regulations implementing the STAA are found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2007). The STAA has been amended since Carter filed his complaint on June 16, 2005. See Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, P.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007). It is unnecessary for us to determine whether the amendments apply to Carter's complaint because they are not implicated by the issues presented and thus, even if the amendments were applicable to this complaint, they would not affect our decision.
2 Hearing Transcript (T.) at 167-168.
3 T. at 169.
4 Supplemental Recommended Decision and Order Awarding Attorney's Fees and Costs dated May 25, 2006.
5 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (b)(2)(C); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109 (c)(1) (2007).
6 Secretary's Order No. 1-2002, (Delegation of Authority and Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(a).
7 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3); Lyninger v. Casazza Trucking Co., ARB No. 02-113, ALJ No. 2001-STA-038, slip op. at 2 (ARB Feb. 19, 2004).
8 Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs. v. Herman, 146 F.3d 12, 21 (1st Cir. 1998), quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); McDede v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., ARB No. 03-107, ALJ No. 2003-STA-012, slip op. at 3 (ARB Feb. 27, 2004).
9 BSP Trans., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 160 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 1998).
10 Dalton v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 58 Fed. App. 442, 445, 2003 WL 356780 (10th Cir. Feb. 19, 1993), citing Ray v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 222, 224 (10th Cir. 1989).
11 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 2004).
12 Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dole, 929 F.2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991); Monde v. Roadway Express, Inc., ARB No. 02-071, ALJ Nos. 2001-STA-022, -029, slip op. at 2 (ARB Oct. 31, 2003).
13 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (a)(1)(A)(i).
14 See West v. Kasbar, Inc. /Mail Contractors of Am., ARB No. 04-155, ALJ No. 2004-STA-034, slip op. at 3-4 (ARB Nov. 30, 2005).
15 R. D. & O. at 23-29.
16 See Williams v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 157 Fed.Appx. 564, 2005 WL 3087895 (4th Cir. 2005) (teacher's whistleblowing activities initially protected but lost their protected status after resolution of her safety complaints); Patey v. Sinclair Oil Corp., ARB No. 96-174, ALJ No. 1996-STA-020 (ARB Nov. 12, 1996) (finding that when employer fully responded to his safety concerns, employee's continued complaints about them not protected).
17 T. at 727-731, 772. See 49 C.F.R. §§ 396.1, 396.3, 396.7 (prohibiting unsafe operation of motor vehicle).
18 T. at 735. See 49 C.F.R. § 396.5 (carrier must ensure motor vehicle had proper lubrication and is free of oil and grease leaks).
19 T. at 737-738. See 49 C.F.R. § 392.7 (prohibition against motor vehicle being driven unless driver satisfied that parts and accessories, including coupling devices, are in good working order), and 49 C.F.R. § 396.7 (prohibiting unsafe operation of motor vehicle).
20 See 49 C.F.R. § 393.1 and 49 C.F.R. § 393.76(h) (mandating sleeper berth equipped with means of preventing ejection of occupant during deceleration of vehicle).
21 T. at 44-45, 118, 119, 192.
22 See Leach v. Basin Western, Inc. & Pac. Intermountain Express, ARB No. 02-089, ALJ No. 2002-STA-005, slip op. at 2 (ARB July 31, 2003); William v. Carretta Trucking, Inc., 1994-STA-007 (Sec'y Feb. 15, 1995) (employee's threat to enforce motor carrier safety regulations is protected under analogous employee protection provisions and should be protected under STAA's provisions).
23 Muzyk v. Carlsward Transp., ARB No. 06-149, ALJ No. 2005-STA-060, slip op. at 4 (ARB Sept. 28, 2007).
24 R. D. & O. at 31-32.
25 Joint Exhibit 9 at 8-9.
26 T. at 118, 192.
27 T. at 120, 169-170, 195-196.
28 T. at 120-122.
29 T. at 195.
30 T. at 171, 1094-1095, 64-66.
31 T. at 34-35, 54-55, 43-44, 74-75, 1077-78.
32 T. at 1088, 60.
33 R. D. & O. at 18.
34 R. D. & O. at 32.
35 Respondent's Brief at 1, 3-18.
36 Muzyk, slip op. at 5 (citations omitted).
37 R. D. & O. at 33-36.
38 Id. at 36.
39 See Kester v. Carolina Power & Light Co., ARB No. 02-007, ALJ No. 2000-ERA-031, slip op. at 13 (ARB Sept. 30, 2003).
40 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(3)(A)(ii).
41 R. D. & O. at 36.
42 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(3)(A)(iii).
43 Hobson v. Combined Transport, Inc., ARB Nos. 06-016, -053, ALJ No. 2005-STA-035, slip op, at 5 (ARB Jan. 31, 2008).
44 Murray v. Air Ride, Inc., ARB No. 00-045, ALJ No. 1999-STA-034, slip op. at 9 (ARB Dec. 29, 2000).
45 Hobson, slip op. at 6.
46 Hobson, slip op. at 6, citing Dale v. Step 1 Stairworks, Inc., ARB No. 04-003, ALJ No. 2002-STA-030, slip op. at 4-5 (ARB Mar. 31, 2005).
47 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(3)(A)(iii).
48 See Complainant's Exhibit 24; Respondent's Exhibit 15; T. at 344-349.
49 See Hobson, slip op. at 8, 9 n.36, and cases cited therein.
50 R. D. & O. at 39.
51 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(3)(B).
52 See, e.g., Jackson v. Butler & Co., ARB Nos. 03-116, -144, ALJ No. 2003-STA-026, slip op. at 9 (ARB Aug 31, 2004).
53 ARB Nos. 04-027, 04-138, ALJ No. 1999-STA-046 (ARB June 30, 2005).