TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

KaiserB wrote:And what pray-tell is the event that the whistleblower exposed; other than the vehicle was overweight from an alleged paperwork error.

Perhaps we could explore Admiralty law in this case because Texas' coast is on the ocean.

The vehicle wasn't overweight from a alleged paperwork error. It was overweight. That is a violation of federal and state law which would subject the company to substantial fines if it's found to be a pattern of behavior. Furthermore, a truck driver can be fined personally for driving an overweight truck and is also exposed to charges of reckless endangerment, manslaughter or even murder if an accident results in death while driving an overweight truck.

Was the vehicle moved? (no, the driver did not move it and asked the load to be changed, thus no law was broken)

Was the vehicles weight changed before the company moved it from its lot? (unknown because the driver in this case was fired prior to the truck moving)

cbunt1 wrote:The gun question is clearly a Red Herring, and it's doing its job.

Well, the thread title is "Fired because of gun" so what you call a red herring, some might call on-topic.

cbunt1 wrote:I'd look for an (additional?) attorney with experience in Transportation Law, and one who is well versed with part 49 of the FMVSS--that's where this started, and it's where the real problem lies.

Being an ex-trucker (Hotshot owner-operator, as well as a company driver for some of the big boys), I can vouch for the game with overweight trucks. They overload the trucks, somewhere (usually) under 5-10%, and make it the driver's problem. Been there, done that. Got the scale tickets to prove it.

The events sound feasible, and I'll guarantee the company made a public spectacle of this to make an example to the other drivers...surely "This Person" isn't the only one who was concerned about carrying overweight loads all the time...it's dangerous, and expensive...and the companies won't back the drivers. It's no coincidence that the 5-10% (most 18-wheelers are registered for 80,000# gross) is just about the amount of fuel and driver gear that an OTR truck will carry!

Good point. When did the employee report the company for the alleged overweight violations? I couldn't find that in the original narrative.

If the allegations were reported to the appropriate agency before he was fired, that looks different to the jury from reporting it immediately before they filed suit against his ex-employer. If the employee still hasn't officially reported the company, that looks different still, and I think a jury might be excused for wondering why not, if the ex-employee honestly believes it's dangerous.

boba wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:I have named no one in this and think this is a fine place to be posting the in... No one know who the company is and no names were used this can not be considered liable in any way.

Yes my attorney told me to search out info for him since I have some law classes under my belt.

VoiceofReason wrote:Consider not only filing against the company but also against individuals for liable.

What kind of liability are we talking about?

The statement to the TEC and what ever a manager can be baited into saying.

KaiserB wrote:Was the vehicle moved? (no, the driver did not move it and asked the load to be changed, thus no law was broken)

Was the vehicles weight changed before the company moved it from its lot? (unknown because the driver in this case was fired prior to the truck moving)

Read this

the Supreme Court recognized a narrow exception to the general "at will" doctrine of employment in Texas, and found that an at-will employee may sue his/her employer if he/she is fired for refusing to commit an illegal act.

The truck doesn't need to move. All this is required is that he refused to drive the overweight truck and is fired as a result. Under those conditions, the company is civilly liable for his dismissal.

And if he wins the case?

An employee who wins a suit under the Sabine Pilot cause of action may be entitled to actual damages that include past lost wages and benefits (back pay), future lost wages and benefits (front pay), and damages for mental anguish. In addition, a prevailing plaintiff may be entitled to punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and court costs.

All that is required, based upon the facts presented by the OP, is that the jury be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that he was fired for refusing to drive an overweight truck and he prevails. He does not have to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the case in a criminal trial, but merely needs to convince the jury that it's more than 50% likely that his version of the story is correct.

No emotions, just facts.

However this turns out, a valuable lesson is to be learned “do the right thing, suffer the consequences”.

One I have had to learn too many times over the years.

baldeagle wrote: All that is required, based upon the facts presented by the OP, is that the jury be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that he was fired for refusing to drive an overweight truck and he prevails. He does not have to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the case in a criminal trial, but merely needs to convince the jury that it's more than 50% likely that his version of the story is correct.

No emotions, just facts.

As always, and to the rest of your responses, succinct and to the point. Bravo.

cbr600 wrote:

cbunt1 wrote:The gun question is clearly a Red Herring, and it's doing its job.

Well, the thread title is "Fired because of gun" so what you call a red herring, some might call on-topic.


On topic, yes. The red herring in this instance is that the firing was over a concealed gun (on paper) when it was clearly about refusal to carry an overweight load. Most company drivers operate under "Forced Dispatch" meaning they can't refuse a load...but if the load is or would be illegal, that firing would create a wrongful termination case all by itself. The company avoided this by firing "This Person" over a concealed handgun, thus my "red herring" comment.

Unfortunately blowing the whistle on the overweight (or any other safety) aspect tends to be a "career limiting decision."

As mentioned above...the lesson is "Do the right thing, pay the consequences"...

I hope this ends well. Really I do. There's much at stake.

TxBlonde

Hope you guys come out of this in good shape. This only illustrates one reason trucking companies stink to work for on the whole. My B-I-L is a trucker and these guys can find more ways to shaft their drivers than you can imagine. For the last 20+ years he has always had at least one pistol with him.

VoiceofReason wrote:However this turns out, a valuable lesson is to be learned “do the right thing, suffer the consequences”.

True, but for the most part I still support the idea of doing the right thing. (not implying you don't.) By default, making a decision/taking an action will have consequences, and a smart person recognizes this and weighs the potential consequences before deciding/acting. Side note: there are often multiple options that can fall into the "right" category.

Good luck, OP. Tough to have to deal with this. FWIW: I think your husband made the right decision, refusing the overweight load. Sorry it has made life rough for you.

There are three sides to every story.

scud runner wrote:There are three sides to every story.

No, there is not.

I feel for the op and hope they win the case. I have been a whistle blower and it did not work out for me. I was asked to falsify our weekly numbers report to corporate and told my boss no. After be yelled at for some time I told him I would go back to my unit and do what he needed. I then called my district manager on the way back to my unit and informed him of what was being asked. He instructed me to file the real numbers and he would be thier with HR on monday morning (this was late friday.) On monday HR started an investagation which my boss denied of course. Our regional VP seemed to believe him over me and keep asking for the proof. Our district manager told him that there was no proof as I trandmitted the true numbers not the false ones as asked. I was fired four weeks later on a rediculous violation and fully believe it to be from being labeled as a trouble maker. I never fought it as I was lucky to get a much better job right away but is has left a bad taste in my mouth for doing the right thing.

Good luck with the he said she said fight. Hopefully you have a good paper work trail with signatures.

Hmmm, wonder if there is any way to find out how many of their drivers have had accidents in the past in which an overloaded truck was discovered.
This entire situation really stinks. I hope you get some traction with a lawsuit.

In the end it sounds like the driver did the right thing be refusing the load. Just think how they would have stood behind him if there was an accident. I hope everything works out for you and your family.

Here's an interesting story about overweight loads.

The Star-Banner also found something else - Benton is hardly an exception in the trucking industry, where companies routinely ignore the law by hauling thousands of pounds of freight more than they should. In fact, several other trucking companies racked up more overweight citations in Florida last year than Benton has in the past four years, including Cypress Truck Lines Inc., Allied Systems LTD, Sysco Food Services, Southeastern Freight Lines Inc., and HMT Company Inc.

It's just that in Benton's case, the company left a paper trail of its violations and some of its employees finally had enough and came forward.


http://www.trucksafety.org/index.php/tr ... -road.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;