Any Drivers Pressured to Violate DOT Regulations

I stayed away from SPRIMO because I didn't want those hacks under my hood. All my work was done at PRIPIT.

 

You know it! That's why my ECM never got screwed up!!

 

OK...I'll give you that one...I misread this (top) post....

In any sense....the 50k(+/-) she will get from the compensatory judgement alone is far better than she could have "earned" at the given average she had running!

Plus...she is getting $500.00(+) per week until there is "bona fide" offer of reinstatement. Brother...she can milk this to some extent!

 

First off, I am the wife of a former Swift driver, I don't have a CDL.....never have. Secondly, I never claimed her miles were adequate to operate her truck in the positive, and I believe I stated that previously. The point of this case is her being a sub par driver had no bearing on her refusal to drive due to a reasonable apprehension of harm to herself and those around her. This is the bottom line. This is the law. A company cannot terminate a driver because they refused to operate their equipment for this reason. Their stated reason for termination was her being in arrears, but she was in arrears from the start, which they used to put some legitimacy to their reasons. However, the court also found that they terminated her for her refusal to drive due to dangerous road conditions. This creates a dual motive. One for legitimate reasons, and one for illegitimate reasons, which means the company has to prove that they were going to terminate her absent her refusal to drive (protected activity).......that's the law. Obviously they couldn't prove it, and this is why the plaintiff prevailed.

 

And your point is?

This woman was an utter failure at the profession she was in. Another employee screwed-up, and provided her with a payday via litigation. And now her attorney is looking for another payday.

 

Seriously?

You only partially know what her "failure" was at Prime. You know nothing of her complete employment history and what kind of driver she was with the other companies.

Yeah, her DM screwed up first, and then the company screwed up via those who terminated her. Her DM only recommended terminating her contract. Ultimately it was their choice. Too bad they didn't want to hear her side, they might not have been so quick to can her.

No, her attorney is only looking for what the judge awarded her already. News flash.....she won the case.

The court ordered that she will be re-instatement or they pay her wages every week until they do, I think it's called front pay. She will get compensatory, punitive damages and back wages. And they must expunge her record with DAC. These things were already awarded her. The only reason it's going back to the judge is because the ARB thought the punitive damages amount was high, and they're sending it back to the judge to reconsider. Nothing says he will change his mind on the amount.

I'd be curious to see what they put on her DAC report. This was more than likely the reason why she couldn't get hired by any carrier. The DAC alone can kill your career. It can certainly prevent someone from finding gainful employment whether the information is true or not.

 

Dangit..............

 

Who was the cleaver meant for?

 

Everyone. I don't discriminate.

 

Well, since you put it that way....