Christopher Buie v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Admin Bd, No. 19-3763 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Department of Labor Administrative Review Board. Board decision affirming the denial of petitioner's administrative complaint alleging his employer fired him for engaging in activities protected by the Surface Transportation Act was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record; petition for review denied.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3763 ___________________________ Christopher L. Buie lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Administrative Review Board of the United States Department of Labor lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Labor (except OSHA) ____________ Submitted: September 28, 2020 Filed: October 1, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Buie petitions for review of a final order from the United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB), affirming the denial of his administrative complaint alleging that his employer fired him for engaging in activities protected under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. After careful review, we conclude that the ARB’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to the law, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. See 49 U.S.C. § 31105(d) (appellate court reviews ARB’s decision pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency decision found to be arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, or if unsupported by substantial evidence in record). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. 47B. We also deny Buie’s pending motion to supplement the record. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
