On May 26, 2010, the Department of Labor ordered UPS to pay one of its drivers $111,008 in back wages, benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees for violations of the whistleblower provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). According to OSHA, UPS terminated the driver for refusing to drive a truck and [...]
Entries Tagged as 'Surface Transportation Assistance Act'
UPS Ordered to Pay $111,000 for Retaliating Against Whistleblowing Truck Driver
June 23rd, 2010 · No Comments
Tags: Surface Transportation Assistance Act
ALJ Order Expands Joint Employer Liability Under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act
March 23rd, 2010 · No Comments
On March 11, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Rae issued an order holding that an agreement which provides a joint employer with the ability to accept or cancel the assignment of a leased employee may be sufficient to establish liability under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). In Myers v. AMS Staff Leasing, the respondent contracted [...]
Tags: OSHA Whistleblower Protection Program · Surface Transportation Assistance Act
ALJ Awards Trucker Punitive Damages After Being Fired for Refusing to Drive in Dangerous Conditions
March 23rd, 2010 · No Comments
On March 15, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Daniel Leland awarded Cynthia Ferguson over $151,000 including $75,000 in punitive damages, holding that she was terminated in retaliation for refusing to drive in hazardous conditions. On a cross country trip, Ferguson encountered extremely inclement weather approaching Donner Pass in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Ferguson observed a truck [...]
Tags: OSHA Whistleblower Protection Program · Retaliation · Surface Transportation Assistance Act
ARB Adopts Burlington Northern Standard for Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
October 20th, 2008 · No Comments
In Melton v. Yellow Transp. Inc., the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) clarified that it will apply the Burlington Northern standard to whistleblower cases when determining whether an employer violated a whistleblower retaliation protection provision. This decision is significant because under Burlington, an employment action is materially adverse if it is capable of [...]