Id. also see 49 U.S.C. § 31105(c). Plaintiff received the letter from Ms. Wuest during the busy holiday season and plaintiff’s counsel was in and out of the office at that time.

The specific section of the STAA under which Plaintiff asserts that portion of his claim expressly applies only to refusals to drive based on a “reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or the public because of the vehicle’s hazardous safety or security condition.” 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff held or voiced any “apprehension of serious injury” to himself or others based on his vehicle’s condition that night.

Instead of filing a private cause of action, individuals allegedly aggrieved by a violation of the STAA’s anti-retaliation provision must file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within 180 days after the alleged violation. 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(1); Jones v. Metal Mgmt. Nashville, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5572 (W.D. KY Jan. 26, 2009)

28. A complete copy of all of your medical records, hospital records, surgical records and mental health[] records for the time period from January 1, 2005, through the present[,] including, but not limited to, any and all examinations, tests, diagnoses, treatment notes, procedures, prescriptions, laboratory results, bills and invoices relating to any medical treatment you have sought or received, records describing your condition or any treatment prescribed for or undergone by you, of and/or by any health care provider, whether or not 1 The plaintiff also claims that the defendant retaliated against him in violation of the Maine Whistleblower’s Protection Act, 26 M.R.S.A. § 861 et seq., the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 4551 et seq., and the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C. § 31105, for making reports and complaints protected by those laws, Complaint ¶¶ 1, 112-115, and violated the examination and confidentiality provisions of the ADA, id. ¶ 111.