Need Help with my Lawsuit against Transport America

Many of you seem to misunderstand what dispatch told you. Many times a driver can go get the load legally. If you can go get loaded legally, than it is stupid to refuse the load because you can't deliver legally. They need you to get the load on the trailer. If you get it loaded, it is the companies money, even if they split the load with another driver, or even let you remain compliant and deliver late. If you don't load it, it ends up on another carriers trailer and your company loses out completely.

 

Don't know about that ...

You accept and PU the load - it's your arse on the hook if it's late.

Unless you have a good reason like weather ... very bad weather.

These situations tend to happen because some dispatcher needs to cover their own arses - your record is not a priority, and will leave nasty marks.

Depends on the company and office staff and if they are willing to work with you - if not, forget about it.

 

All the laws people quote are fine and dandy butI you forget there's ways around every single one of them.

I wish you luck but when battling a large corporation by yourself often times they will either settle with you immediately giving you whatever money you want to make you go away or theywant will drag the process out and cost you a ton of money. If you've got a lot of time and money, go for it. Props to you. Good luck.

 

Last Activity 12.18.2010

 

I think this thread is from 2009.

 

Section 405

Effective in 1983, Section 405 (49 U.S.C. § 31105) was enacted to encourage employee reporting of noncompliance with safety regulations governing commercial motor vehicles. Congress recognized that employees in the transportation industry are often best able to detect safety violations and yet, because they may be threatened with discharge for cooperating with enforcement agencies, they need express protection against retaliation for reporting these violations. See, e. g., 128 Cong. Rec. 32698 (1982) (remarks of Sen. Percy); id., at 32509-32510 (remarks of Sen. Danforth). Section 405 protects employee "whistle-blowers" by forbidding discharge, discipline, or other forms of discrimination by the employer in response to an employee's complaining about or refusing to operate motor vehicles that do not meet the applicable safety standards.
Congress also recognized that the employee's protection against having to choose between operating an unsafe vehicle and losing his job would lack practical effectiveness if the [481 U.S. 252, 259] employee could not be reinstated pending complete review. The longer a discharged employee remains unemployed, the more devastating are the consequences to his personal financial condition and prospects for reemployment. Ensuring the eventual recovery of backpay may not alone provide sufficient protection to encourage reports of safety violations. Accordingly, 405 incorporates additional protections, authorizing temporary reinstatement based on a preliminary finding of reasonable cause to believe that the employee has suffered a retaliatory discharge. The statute reflects a careful balancing of the relative interests of the Government, employee, and employer. It evidences a legislative determination that the preliminary investigation and finding of reasonable cause by the Secretary, if followed "expeditiously" by a hearing on the record at the employer's request, provide effective protection to the employee and ensure fair consideration of the employer's interest in making unimpaired hiring decisions.
Truck drivers who believe they have suffered retaliation for reporting violations, refusing to commit violations, or participating in proceedings, can seek relief from the U.S. Department of Labor. Under STAA, truck drivers who believe they have suffered an adverse employment action (such as discharge, demotion, discipline, or denial of advancement), have 180 days to file a simple written complaint with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The complaint can be postmarked or faxed to meet the deadline. If OSHA determines that a violation did occur, it can issue a preliminary order requiring reinstatement during further proceedings. Both sides will have an opportunity to present their evidence in a recorded hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ's decision is reviewed by the Administrative Review Board, and parties can appeal to federal courts of appeals.
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 U.S. 252, that due process requires that employers receive prereinstatement notice of the employee's allegations, notice of the substance of the relevant supporting evidence, an opportunity to submit a written response, and an opportunity to meet with the investigator and present statements from rebuttal witnesses. These procedures provide a reliable initial check against mistaken decisions

 

I just noticed that too

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

 

it is from 2009. someone got bored i guess.

 

Dont agree with this!, I have been asked to gwet a load in the past that I couldnt get there ontime legally, SO!, I told them I'll p/u and get rolling but you will need to ether reschedule delivery, or find a swap to make ontime delivery, Never had any problems, If you have Qual-comm or peoplenet or something like this, make sure you get that on there