## Facts

- Roadway Express, a trucking company covered by § 405 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), discharged driver Jerry Hufstetler for alleged misconduct involving his truck’s lights and pay for repair time.
- Hufstetler claimed the discharge was retaliation for earlier safety-related complaints and pursued unsuccessful relief under a collective-bargaining process.
- He filed a retaliation complaint with the Department of Labor under STAA § 405; Roadway received notice of the complaint.
- An OSHA investigator interviewed Hufstetler and other employees and gathered statements supporting the retaliation claim.
- Roadway was allowed to meet with the investigator and submit a written statement explaining the discharge, but was not told the substance of the evidence gathered during the investigation.
- The Secretary of Labor issued a preliminary order directing Hufstetler’s reinstatement with backpay.
- Roadway sued for injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that temporary reinstatement without a prior evidentiary hearing violated Fifth Amendment due process.
- While the case proceeded, Roadway requested the statute’s evidentiary hearing; after that hearing, the Secretary issued a final reinstatement order.

## Issues

1. Whether STAA § 405 violates Fifth Amendment procedural due process by authorizing temporary reinstatement without a pre-reinstatement evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether due process requires the agency, before issuing a temporary reinstatement order, to disclose to the employer the substance of the evidence supporting the “reasonable cause” finding.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the case was not moot despite the later final reinstatement order because the dispute over preliminary reinstatement procedures remained live.
- The Court reversed the district court to the extent it required a full evidentiary hearing before temporary reinstatement.
- The Court affirmed that the Secretary’s procedures were unconstitutional insofar as they failed to provide the employer the substance of the evidence supporting the employee’s charge before ordering temporary reinstatement.
- The Court concluded that temporary reinstatement may issue after notice, disclosure of supporting evidence, and a meaningful opportunity to respond, followed by a prompt post-reinstatement evidentiary hearing.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process for interim employment remedies is assessed under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing framework: (1) the private interests affected, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of added safeguards, and (3) the government’s interests.
- Due process does not require a trial-type evidentiary hearing before a temporary reinstatement order when the order is preliminary and a prompt full hearing is available afterward.
- Due process does require, before temporary reinstatement, that the employer receive notice of the allegations and the substance of the evidence supporting them, plus a meaningful opportunity to respond.
- The required pre-reinstatement procedures must reduce the risk of erroneous reinstatement without defeating the statutory aim of protecting employees who report safety violations.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld STAA § 405’s temporary reinstatement mechanism as consistent with due process without a prior evidentiary hearing, but required that employers receive the substance of the supporting evidence and a meaningful chance to respond before being compelled to reinstate an employee.


Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 U.S. 252 (1987)