The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals last month held that a truck driver could go to trial for being unlawfully fired when he complained in his trucker driving log about a steering problem, even though the trucker wrote down the wrong cause, based on what he’d heard from a mechanic. Gaines v. K-Five Constr. Corp., No. 12-2249, 2014 WL 28601, at *10-*12 (7th Cir. Jan. 3, 2014). In so holding, the Court cited to the broad remedial purpose of the U.S. Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) in protecting truck drivers who complain about safety issues from being fired, and other workplace harms, so we all have truck safety protection Id. at *12. The Court also rejected the employer’s nitpicking arguments about whether the driver complained in the right way, in the right place, at the right time. Instead, the Court held that a truck driver’s multiple concerns expressed verbally in person, over the radio, and finally written down in his daily driving report, in good faith even if slightly inaccurate, were reasonable safety concerns, clearly expressed, enough for a jury to decide whether the driver was unlawfully fired or fired for fussing. Id. at *5-*12. The U.S. Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), under an ‘anti-retaliation provision’, protects truck drivers from being fired or harmed at work who have (1) an objectively reasonable concern about truck safety (2) and make a complaint about it. STAA, 49 U.S. § 31105. This “anti-retaliation provision” was enacted after truck safety inspections in the 1980s uncovered widespread corner-cutting in the industry. Congress in STAA gives incentives for the drivers to raise safety concerns, by providing them protections under U.S. law. Gaines, 2014 WL 28601, at *6. Here, the driver Mr. Gaines was taken off his usual truck and found multiple problems with the two trucks he was put on next. After raising concerns over a couple of days, the employer wrote him up and fired him. Mr. Gaines now can take the employer to trial, including over the employer’s write-ups for not driving trucks that he had expressed safety concerns about. See id. at *1-12. The trial court below had dismissed this matter. The trial court reasoned on summary judgment that Mr. Gaines continued driving an unsafe truck, even while complaining, and so it must have been safe. Gaines v. K-Five Constr. Corp., No. 11-C-3496, at *13 (D. Ill. Mem. Op. May 7, 2012). The Seventh Circuit, in a wide-ranging decision, noted that a trucker could complain about a truck while still driving it, and further held that it was for the jury to decide. The Seventh Circuit, in so ruling, emphasized a pro-safety view of the STAA held by other circuit courts, including the Fourth Circuit covering Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas. Id. at *12 (citing Calhoun v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 576 F.3d 201, 212 (4th Cir.2009) and other cases). Lebau & Neuworth has represented hundreds of employees fired or punished at work making complaints that constitute “protected activity” under U.S. law. If you are a trucker who has been fired, demoted or punished for raising safety concerns about the trucks you drive, call us, [text-phone], or contact us online, through our Web site. We can help.
