Jacobs v. Liberty Logistics, Inc. (agency decision, May 9, 2019)

Plain-English summary

T.J. Jacobs alleged that Liberty Logistics fired him for raising commercial-vehicle safety concerns. The ALJ found that Jacobs instead voluntarily resigned when he delivered a “Notice of Rescission” terminating all agreements with the company, even though the letter also claimed the company still had to pay him. The ALJ did not credit Jacobs's testimony that the letter meant something else. The Board held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the company took no adverse employment action, an essential element of a Surface Transportation Assistance Act claim. It affirmed the denial and later reissued the decision only to correct a reference to the ALJ from “he” to “she.”

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. §§ 31105 and 42121; 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110
• Outcome: Finding of voluntary resignation affirmed and STAA complaint denied; decision reissued solely for a gender correction.
• Key point: A resignation letter defeated the required adverse-action element where the ALJ reasonably discredited testimony that the letter meant something else.

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:

T.J. JACOBS, ARB CASE NO. 2017-0080
COMPLAINANT, ALJ CASE NO. 2016-STA-00007
v. DATE: MAY 9 2019
LIBERTY LOGISTICS, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
Appearances:

For the Complainant:
T.J. Jacobs; pro se; Jacksonville, Florida

For the Respondent:
Sheila Wilson; lay representative; Lilburn, Georgia

Before: William T. Barto, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge; James A. Haynes and Daniel T. Gresh, Administrative Appeals Judges

ERRATA

On April 30, 2019, the Administrative Review Board issued a Final Decision and Order (D. & O.) affirming the ALJ’s conclusion that Respondent did not violate the STAA and denying the complaint. On page two, line three of the D. & O., the Board inadvertently misstated the judge’s gender as “he” instead of “she.” Accordingly, we hereby reissue the Final Decision and Order to correct the judge’s gender as “she” on page two, line three. In all other respects, the D. & O. remains unchanged.

SO ORDERED.

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

In the Matter of:

T.J. JACOBS, ARB CASE NO. 2017-0080
COMPLAINANT, ALJ CASE NO. 2016-STA-00007
v. DATE: APR 30 2019
LIBERTY LOGISTICS, INC., REISSUE: MAY 9 2019
RESPONDENT.
Appearances:

For the Complainant:
T.J. Jacobs; pro se; Jacksonville, Florida

For the Respondent:
Sheila Wilson; lay representative; Lilburn, Georgia

Before: William T. Barto, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge; James A. Haynes and Daniel T. Gresh, Administrative Appeals Judges

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM. T.J. Jacobs, the Complainant, filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on July 29, 2015. Jacobs alleged that the Respondent, his employer Liberty Logistics, Inc., violated the employee protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982, as amended and re-codified, when it terminated his employment in retaliation for his having raised safety concerns. 1 The STAA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees when they report violations of commercial motor vehicle safety rules or when they refuse to

1 49 U.S.C. § 31105 (2007) as implemented at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2018); see 49 U.S.C.
§ 42121 (2000).

operate a vehicle when such operation would violate those rules. 2 A Department of Labor (DOL) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint after a hearing because she found that Complainant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent took adverse action against him. On appeal, we summarily affirm the ALJ’s Decision and Order (D. & O.).

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Secretary of Labor has delegated to the Administrative Review Board authority to hear appeals from ALJ decisions and issue final agency decisions in cases arising under the STAA. 3 The ARB reviews questions of law presented on appeal de novo, but is bound by the ALJ’s factual determinations as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. 4 We uphold an ALJ’s credibility determinations unless they are “inherently incredible or patently unreasonable.” 5

DISCUSSION

STAA complaints are governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in the employee protection provision of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21). 6 To prevail on a STAA claim, an

employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his employer, in

2 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(a)(1)(B)(i).

3 Secretary’s Order No. 1-2019 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 84 Fed. Reg. 13072 (Apr. 3, 2019).

4 Palmer v. Canadian Nat’l Ry. / Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., ARB No. 16-0035, ALJ No. 2014- FRS-00154, slip op. at 14 (Sep. 30, 2016) (reissued with full dissent, Jan. 4, 2017); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(b).

5 Kirk v. Rooney Trucking Co., ARB No. 2014-0035, ALJ No. 2013-STA-00042, slip op. at 3 (ARB Nov. 18, 2015) (quoting Mizusawa v. United Parcel Serv., ARB No. 2011-0009, ALJ No. 2010-AIR-00011, slip op. at 3 (ARB June 15, 2012) (quoting Jeter v. Avior Tech. Ops., Inc., ARB No. 2006-0035, ALJ No. 2004-AIR-00030, slip op. at 13 (ARB Feb. 29, 2008))).

6 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1); see 49 U.S.C.A. § 42121.

relevant part, took an adverse employment action against him. 7 If the employee fails to prove this requisite element, the entire claim fails. 8

In light of our disposition of this matter, we limit our discussion to the issue of whether the Complainant was terminated from his employment or voluntarily resigned. 9 The ALJ found that Complainant resigned from his job when he gave Respondent a so-called “Notice of Rescission” letter, in which Complainant said he was terminating “any and all agreements” between his employer and himself. The letter also purported to preserve the Respondent’s obligation to pay him. The content of Complainant’s Notice of Rescission letter persuaded the ALJ that Complainant had voluntarily resigned his employment. D. & O. at 18-20. Although Complainant asserted in his testimony that he did not resign and that the letter meant something else, the ALJ did not find that testimony credible. 10 Id. at 19.

CONCLUSION

As substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s factual determination that Respondent did not take any adverse action against Complainant, we AFFIRM the ALJ’s conclusion of law that Respondent did not violate the STAA. Accordingly, the complaint in this matter is DENIED. 11

SO ORDERED.

7 49 U.S.C.A. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iii).

8 Mauldin v. G & K Servs., ARB No. 16-059, ALJ No. 2015-STA-054, slip op. at 4 (ARB June 25, 2018).

9 We affirm the ALJ’s findings and conclusions regarding the Complainant’s other allegations of error because they are supported by substantial evidence and by applicable law.

10 See Kirk, ARB No. 2014-0035, slip op. at 3.

11 29 C.F.R. § 1978.110(e).