Federal appeals court revives trucker’s retaliation lawsuit

A federal appeals court ruled that a former truck driver for Hard Drive Express can proceed with a retaliation lawsuit, referring to text messages exchanged between him and the company owner in its decision.

The Sixth Circuit recently overturned a Michigan federal district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to Rockwood, Mich.-based Hard Drive Express. The trucking company is being sued by a former driver who claims he was fired after complaining about certain wages and threatening to report the company to government agencies.

In both the Sixth Circuit and district court decisions, the courts relied on a heated text-message exchange between Hard Drive Express owner Jim Betz and the driver, Steven Caudle. The question is whether or not Caudle’s part of the conversation is protected under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Compensation for repairs and vacation time

The complaint is based on a dispute regarding reimbursement for truck repairs and the company’s paid-time-off policy.

Caudle began working for Hard Drive Express in August 2015 as an employee driver. In January 2019, the company implemented a paid-time-off policy that included five paid days off per year. Drivers were required to give a 30-day notice before taking paid time off. They also were required to work the two weeks immediately before and immediately after the days off.

Although Caudle’s pay exceeded minimum wage for “regular hours worked,” he argues the pay was below minimum wage when accounting for the time and expense for repairing and servicing company trucks. The lawsuit claims he made repairs himself, paid for repairs and sometimes had to drive more than 100 miles to get parts. Caudle claims he was not compensated for this time or reimbursed for expenses.

Hard Drive Express argues that drivers are supposed to have repairs done by vendors with whom it has accounts. In the event a driver has to pay for repairs, a system is in place for reimbursement once a driver submits receipts. The company claims there is no record of receipts from Caudle, who admitted to not keeping original receipts.

Threats toward Hard Drive Express

Caudle’s relationship with the company and its owner began to take a turn once he started to address alleged failure of reimbursement.

According to court documents, Betz testified that Caudle complained about various policies and began making threats. Caudle told Betz several times that failure to pay him for repairs was illegal. Betz also said Caudle threatened to report him to the Department of Transportation after he directed the driver to travel a short distance in a storm despite reaching his maximum driving hours. In addition, Caudle complained about Hard Drive Express’ policies governing truck speeds, loss-of-safety bonus and drop-and-hook fees.

The climax of the dispute occurred in February 2019, when Caudle texted Betz to inquire about paid time off. After Caudle argued about the policy, Betz reminded him the Department of Labor does not require paid time off and that the company’s paid-time-off policy is “a gift.”

That’s when Caudle made his threats (redacted and edited for brevity and clarity):

Caudle: I give you 10 minutes, buddy. I’m on my way to the labor board. I’m done playing with you …

Betz: Bud, I have nothing to be scared of. Go ahead. You can threaten me all you want; doesn’t bother me one bit. (There) is absolutely nothing in the laws that says I have to give you paid days off … (Do) what you think is best. Park the driver’s truck and make sure it is in the same shape you receive it, because I can hold your checks until I check out the truck. It is in the driver’s handbook. I will be coming to get the truck at the beginning of the week.

Betz: Also, Michigan is an at-will state. That means I can get rid of someone for any reason.

Caudle: Your truck will be in a secure location; you will not get it until I get all my money. You have yourself a great day, buddy.

Caudle: And I got the email of every employee you got, and I’m going to let them know what the labor law says – they will get paid for service on their truck; they will get paid for changing their own fuel filters … Our conversation had nothing to do with getting (paid) for days off, and I’m not that stupid.

…

Betz: The truck will be taken straight to a dealership to get completely checked out. To make sure nothing was done to it. After your threats, I don’t trust you.

Following the termination, Caudle filed his lawsuit.

Fair Labor Standards Act protections

Caudle’s lawsuit argues that he was unlawfully fired per protections granted under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Four criteria must be met to successfully argue unlawful retaliation:

1. Employee engaged in a protected activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
2. Employee exercise of this right was known by the employer.
3. Thereafter, the employer took an employment action adverse to employee.
4. There was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

The district court determined that Caudle satisfied the first, third and fourth elements: He complained and threatened to report Hard Drive Express (protected activity), and Betz fired him (adverse action) shortly afterward (causation).

Regarding notifying the company of exercising his right, the district court pointed out that the text message conversation referred only to paid time off, which is not protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the basis of a retaliation claim falls apart.

However, the Sixth Circuit noted that Betz did bring up reimbursement earlier in the text exchange. In that exchange, in reference to truck maintenance, Betz reminded Caudle that he offers drivers interest-free loans.

The Sixth Circuit also noted that aside from the text messages, Hard Drive Express admitted in its summary judgment motion that Caudle had “repeatedly complained and threatened to report the company” about repair reimbursement. Although the district court found those complaints did “not appear to be more than mere grumblings,” the Sixth Circuit found them to be “competent evidence to overcome summary judgment.”

With the appellate court reversal, Caudle can proceed with his claims of retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. LL

Find more trucking news at LandLine.media.