Publication Details

Better Safe Than Sorry – Keep STAA in Mind in Discharges for False Safety Claims

__________

Article Originally Published: February 2003

The information contained in this article is not intended to be legal advice. Readers should not act or rely on this information without consulting an attorney.

Transportation employers are often confronted with incidents involving drivers who make frivolous claims that their units are undriveable for safety reasons. While a typical employer response may be to terminate such drivers, employers should not forget that drivers have special remedies under the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act ("STAA"). Without proper planning, these remedies can disrupt normal discharge timing, create new legal proceedings, and possibly require reinstatement of an otherwise dischargeable employee.

For example, assume that a truck driver registers a complaint with the company’s safety department stating that the motor vehicle assigned to him is defective. Shortly thereafter, he files a complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation contending that the equipment operated by the company violates specific safety requirements set forth in the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. After these developments, the company examines the equipment and concludes that the truck driver is erroneous in his contention. After a discussion with the company, the truck driver refuses to drive the equipment and is discharged for refusal to perform work.

The truck driver then files a complaint with the U.S. Dept. of Labor ("DOL") alleging that his termination was in retaliation for his safety complaints and violated STAA §405. After an investigation by the DOL, it concludes there is reasonable cause to believe that the truck driver was discharged in violation of the STAA. It issues an order compelling the company to reinstate the employee in advance of an evidentiary hearing involving the incident. As a result, the company is forced to reinstate the truck driver pending further proceedings before the DOL.

These hypothetical circumstances should prompt all covered transportation employers to recognize that STAA §405 was designed to protect employees from being discharged for refusing to operate a motor vehicle that does not comply with applicable state and federal safety regulations or in retaliation for filing complaints alleging such non-compliance. Moreover, it is immaterial whether these complaints are filed internally or with a federal or state agency.

STAA §405 provides for an initial investigation of an employee’s discharge by the DOL. Upon finding "reasonable cause" to believe that the employee was discharged in violation of the Act, the DOL is required to issue an order directing the employer to reinstate the employee. It is only then that the employer may request an evidentiary hearing and a final decision from the DOL.

However, this request does not operate to stay the preliminary order of reinstatement. Employers considering a discharge involving a frivolous unsafe equipment claim should be sure that their position on safe equipment is ironclad. Otherwise, the DOL may decide to reinstate the driver on a preliminary basis and require that his employment continue while it conducts a possibly lengthy evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of the employer’s contention that its unit was not unsafe.

STAA §405 applies to all transportation employers engaged in interstate commerce and covers represented and non-represented employees. With a union, an employer’s successful defense of a grievance filed under a collective bargaining agreement will not preclude the DOL from compelling a preliminary reinstatement of the employee pending a final evidentiary hearing.

Employers should be fully aware of STAA §405 before electing to discipline employees who 1) protest operating motor vehicle equipment as unsafe, 2) refuse to transport hazardous materials, or 3) file complaints concerning these subject matters before the disciplinary action is taken.