Roderick Carter v. CPC Logistics, Inc.
706 F. App'x 794
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Roderick A. Carter, a truck driver, filed an STAA (49 U.S.C. § 31105) retaliation complaint after CPC Logistics/CPC Medical Products (CPC) and Hospira terminated him; he alleged he took safety-motivated fatigue/rest breaks and was fired in retaliation.
- OSHA dismissed; Carter requested a Department of Labor ALJ hearing. The ALJ found CPC was his employer, dismissed Hospira, credited limited instances of protected activity (refusal to drive while ill once), but discredited Carter’s testimony that he repeatedly took fatigue breaks and told two CPC supervisors about them.
- The ALJ concluded Carter’s protected activity was not a contributing factor in his termination and dismissed the complaint; the ARB affirmed.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit found the ALJ overlooked significant evidence—most notably CPC’s own OSHA position statement conceding Carter mentioned fatigue breaks to two supervisors when questioned about his delays, and that the delays were a factor in his termination.
- The court held the ALJ’s adverse credibility findings on that point were unsupported by substantial evidence and prejudiced Carter, making it impossible to determine harmlessness; the case was remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carter) | Defendant's Argument (CPC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter engaged in STAA-protected activity (taking fatigue/rest breaks and reporting them) and told supervisors about it | Carter: He took fatigue breaks during routes, reported them to supervisors, and delays arose from those safety breaks | CPC: Carter did not report fatigue breaks to supervisors; delays were not caused by safety-motivated rests | Court: ALJ’s finding that Carter never told supervisors is not supported—CPC conceded Carter mentioned fatigue breaks; remand required to reassess protected activity and causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 576 F.3d 201 (recognizes Secretary of Labor makes final STAA determinations subject to appellate review)
- Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Reich, 8 F.3d 980 (driver fatigue rule falls within STAA protection; delays unrelated to safety are not protected)
- Pac Tell Group, Inc. v. NLRB, 817 F.3d 85 (definition of substantial evidence)
- NLRB v. CWI of Md., Inc., 127 F.3d 319 (standards for disturbing ALJ credibility findings)
- Sea "B" Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244 (harmless error rule applied to administrative adjudications)
- Sparks v. Gilley Trucking Co., 992 F.2d 50 (standard for determining whether error affected outcome)