Maverick Transportation, LLC v. U.S. Department of Labor
739 F.3d 1149
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Canter, a Maverick driver, was involved in a fatal accident; state trooper found multiple truck defects. Maverick arranged partial repairs; some defects remained uncorrected. Canter refused to drive the truck back to Maverick’s yard without repairs and transportation home, left the truck at a truck stop, and later resigned after a month-long medical leave for depression.
- Maverick’s fleet manager prepared a memo and Maverick placed an “abandonment” notation in Canter’s Drive‑A‑Check (DAC) report, which can harm future hiring prospects.
- Canter continued working for other carriers until 2008, when he learned of the DAC abandonment notation and alleged it hindered his job prospects; he filed a STAA retaliation complaint in December 2008.
- An ALJ found Canter’s claim timely and that Maverick retaliated by placing the DAC notation; ALJ awarded back pay and $75,000 for emotional distress. The ARB affirmed, reviewing under the post‑2007 STAA standard and applying an agency discovery‑style accrual rule (limitations run from definitive notice of adverse action).
- Maverick petitioned for review, challenging timeliness, the merits of retaliation (protected activity and adverse action), and damages; the court denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Canter) | Defendant's Argument (Maverick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of STAA claim | Filed within 180 days of receiving definitive notice of the DAC abandonment notation (first saw it in 2008) | Limitations began when Maverick placed notation in 2004; claim is time‑barred | Court upheld ARB: defer to agency rule that accrual runs from definitive notice; substantial evidence that Canter filed within 180 days |
| Protected activity — refusal to drive | Refusal was protected because uncorrected defects violated FMCSA regs (and alternatively he had reasonable fear) | Defects weren’t sufficient to violate regs or place truck out of service; refusal not protected | Court affirmed ARB/ALJ that two uncorrected defects violated regs; refusal was protected activity |
| Adverse action — DAC abandonment notation | Notation had actual adverse effect on hiring (K & B refused to hire) | Not adverse because Canter initially obtained jobs after notation; mere negative report not necessarily adverse | Court upheld ARB: substantial evidence the notation caused hiring denial, so it was an adverse employment action |
| Remedies — back pay and emotional‑distress damages | Sought back pay (no reduction for leaving interim job) and $75,000 for emotional distress | Back pay should be reduced for failure to mitigate (resigned from DSCO); $75,000 excessive without medical proof | Court affirmed awards: leaving DSCO was justified (employer asked him to violate hours rules), so no mitigation reduction; $75,000 not an abuse of discretion given evidence of major depression and comparable ARB awards |
Key Cases Cited
- Steed v. As‑true, 524 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 2000) (substantial‑evidence review principles)
- Wilson Trophy Co. v. N.L.R.B., 989 F.2d 1502 (8th Cir. 1993) (deference to agency factual findings)
- Comcast of Ill. X v. Multi‑Vision Elec., Inc., 491 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2007) (discovery accrual rule in federal statutes absent contrary congressional directive)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (discussion of discovery rule and inquiry notice in accrual doctrine)
- Turner v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2005) (negative employment reports not adverse absent proof of effect on hiring)
- Christensen v. Titan Distribution, Inc., 481 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2007) (emotional‑distress damages may rest on plaintiff testimony; review of damage discretion)