In Hildebrand v. H. H. Williams Trucking, Inc., Case No. 2010-STA-56, Judge Rosenow held that Mr. Hildebrand's refusal to drive with his loaded tractor-trailer set at 80,360 was protected under the employee protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistant Act ("STAA").
The Judge noted that it was undisputed that, even though Hildebrand would drive on State Highway until he reached I-80, he would have still exceeded 80,000 pounds once he entered I-80 in Wyoming. Judge Rosenow stated as follows:
Quote:
The record is clear that when Complainant took the rig to the scales for the first time, the reported weight was 80,360 pounds. There was testimony that the scale may have been within calibrated tolerances and still report a weight that was slightly more or less than the actual weight. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence is that the rig weighed 80,360 pounds. Similarly, there was some conflict as to the correct weight limitations on non- interstate highways and the routing Complainant was supposed to take to I-80. Nonetheless, given a starting overage of 360 pounds, the burn rate of the truck, and the mileage to Cheyenne, the preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that had Complainant continued with the initial load, he would have more likely than not been operating on I-80 in excess of 80,000, in violation of the regulation. In fact, Howard Williams conceded in his candid and credible testimony that Complainant would not have been under 80,000 by the time he reached I-80. However, Mr. Williams added that he did not see that as a violation, because the truck scale manned by Commercial Vehicle Enforcement will give some leeway, even though the weight is slightly over.
***
While Mr. Williams testimony may have stated a rational position and accurate assessment of industry practice, it does not reflect applicable law.
Although Williams Trucking claimed it fired Mr. Hildebrand for failing to communicate, Judge Rosenow found that Hildebrand was fired in retaliation for his legally-protected refusal to drive. The Judge found support for this in Williams Trucking's position statement to OSHA in which it stated that drivers should take loads as long as they do not exceed 800 pounds overweight. It also stated to OSHA that if Hildebrand called dispatch, he would have been told to go with the 390 pounds of excess weight and that the employer would pay any fines. The record is clear that when Complainant took the rig to the scales for the first time, the reported weight was 80,360 pounds. There was testimony that the scale may have been within calibrated tolerances and still report a weight that was slightly more or less than the actual weight. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence is that the rig weighed 80,360 pounds. Similarly, there was some conflict as to the correct weight limitations on non- interstate highways and the routing Complainant was supposed to take to I-80. Nonetheless, given a starting overage of 360 pounds, the burn rate of the truck, and the mileage to Cheyenne, the preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that had Complainant continued with the initial load, he would have more likely than not been operating on I-80 in excess of 80,000, in violation of the regulation. In fact, Howard Williams conceded in his candid and credible testimony that Complainant would not have been under 80,000 by the time he reached I-80. However, Mr. Williams added that he did not see that as a violation, because the truck scale manned by Commercial Vehicle Enforcement will give some leeway, even though the weight is slightly over.
***
While Mr. Williams testimony may have stated a rational position and accurate assessment of industry practice, it does not reflect applicable law.
Judge Rosenow ordered Williams Trucking to reinstate Mr. Hildebrand, pay him back pay, additional compensatory damages of $6,000 and punitive damages of $10,000.
Hildebrand's claim was brought under the STAA provision prohibiting retaliation against drivers because they have filed safety-related complaints with the employer or government, or because they have refused to drive in violation of a commercial vehicle safety regulation.
Paul O. Taylor
Attorney
Truckers Justice Center
900 West 128th Street, Suite 104
Burnsville, MN 55337
Tel. No. 651-454-5800
www.truckersjusticecenter.com
NOTHING IN THIS POST SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS CREATING AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
