Does the 'refuses to operate' clause under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act afford protection to employees who refuse to commit unsafe acts while in their operation of vehicles, or is the protection afforded solely to employees who refuse to drive vehicles either because of the vehicle's hazardous condition or the driver has a reasonable apprehension of accident of injury?

Questions Presented 1. Does the “refuses to operate” clause under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (“STAA”) afford protection to employees who refuse to commit unsafe acts while in their operation of vehicles (as held by the Tenth Circuit), or is the protection afforded solely to employees who refuse to drive vehicles either because of the vehicle’s hazardous condition or the driver has a reasonable apprehension of accident of injury (as held by Eighth Circuit)? : 2. Did Congress intend for state administrative findings that are not reviewed to be : afforded issue preclusion effect in federal proceedings involving discrimination claims brought under the STAA? 3. Did the lower courts grossly misapply the substantial evidence standard in this case? i