Carter v. CPC Logistics, Inc. (Board decision, January 12, 2018)

Plain-English summary

Truck driver Roderick Carter claimed that CPC Logistics fired him after he refused to drive while fatigued and reported his need for rest breaks. An administrative law judge dismissed his Surface Transportation Assistance Act complaint, and the Board initially affirmed. The Fourth Circuit found that the judge overlooked evidence about Carter's fatigue reports and that this error could affect whether the reports contributed to his firing. Following the court's ruling, the Board vacated its December 2016 decision and returned the case for further proceedings. This order did not decide whether CPC had retaliated against Carter.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: Surface Transportation Assistance Act truck driver protection under 49 U.S.C. § 31105.
• Outcome: Earlier Board decision affirming dismissal vacated; case remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: The judge must reconsider evidence of Carter's fatigue reports when assessing whether protected activity contributed to his termination.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

In the Matter of:

RODERICK A. CARTER,
ARB CASE NO. 15-050

COMPLAINANT,
ALJ CASE NO. 2012-STA-061

v. DATE: January 12, 2018

CPC LOGISTICS, INC.; CPC MEDICAL
PRODUCTS, LLC; and HOSPIRA
FLEET SERVICES, LLC,

RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Roderick A. Carter, pro se, Hopkins, South Carolina

For the Respondent:
Michael F. Harris, Esq.; Harris, Dowell, Fisher & Harris, LLC; Chesterfield, Missouri

Before: Paul M. Igasaki, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge; Joanne Royce, Administrative Appeals Judge; and Anuj C. Desai, Administrative Appeals Judge 1

ORDER OF REMAND

Roderick A. Carter filed a complaint under the whistleblower protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act 2 and its implementing regulations 3 on December 22, 1
Judge Desai has since left the Administrative Review Board.

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 1
 2011, against his employer, CPC Logistics, Inc., and CPC Medical Properties, LLC (collectively CPC), claiming that the company fired him in violation of the STAA. After a hearing, a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed his complaint on the grounds that Carter failed to prove that his protected activity of refusing to drive while fatigued was a contributing factor in CPC’s termination. Carter appealed to the Administrative Review Board (ARB) which affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of Carter’s complaint. Carter then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit determined that the ALJ overlooked “important evidence” in considering Carter’s contention on appeal that he engaged in additional instances of protected activity by refusing to drive when fatigued and that he reported his need to take fatigue breaks to two supervisors. The court held that the ALJ’s finding—that Carter never mentioned fatigue breaks when questioned about his route delays—was not supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that “the ALJ’s flawed factual analysis, adopted by the ARB, prejudiced Carter” given CPC’s admission that Carter’s delays were a factor in his termination. Because the impact of the ALJ’s error on Carter’s ability to establish contributory causation could not be measured, remand was required.
Accordingly, consistent with the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, the ARB vacates its Final Decision and Order of December 22, 2016, and remands this case for further proceedings consistent with the September 5, 2017 opinion of the Fourth Circuit.

SO ORDERED.

PAUL M. IGASAKI
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

JOANNE ROYCE
Administrative Appeals Judge

2
49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (Thomson Reuters 2016) (STAA).
3
29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2017).

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 2