2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,060
- 52,344
- 2,290
This article details what actually happened with the truck driver who was fired and Gorsuch and his opinion....
The Real Story About Neil Gorsuch and the TransAm 'Frozen Trucker'
On a second call to the dispatcher, Maddin was told to "hang in there." Half an hour later, he broke the company's orders, unhitched the trailer from the truck, and called his supervisor to tell him that he was seeking help. The supervisor told him not to leave the trailer, but he drove off anyway.
When the repair truck arrived fifteen minutes later, Maddin drove back to meet it. A few days later, TransAm fired Maddin for abandoning the trailer. In a complaint with OSHA (the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration), Maddin claimed that TransAm, in firing him, violated the whistleblower protections of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA).
When the case reached the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court sided with Maddin and against TransAm. But Gorsuch dissented. He pointed out that the STAA did not prevent a company from firing an employee who decided to operate his vehicle. The law forbade the firing of an employee for "refusing to operate a vehicle."
Gorsuch wrote that the "statute only forbids employers from firing employees who 'refuse[] to operate a vehicle' out of safety concerns. And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The trucker in this case wasn't fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. Indeed, his employer gave him the very option the statute says it must: once he voiced safety concerns, TransAm expressly — and by everyone's admission — permitted him to sit and remain where he was for help."
--------
"The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protection option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not," Gorsuch argued. "And there's simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid."
His hands were tied. "Maybe the Department [of Labor] would like such a law, maybe someday Congress will adorn our federal statute books with such a law. But it isn't there yet. And it isn't our job to write one — or to allow the Department to write on in Congress's place."
Democrats attacked Gorsuch, suggesting he preferred to leave a frozen trucker out in the cold. But that wasn't his opinion at all.
It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one.
The Real Story About Neil Gorsuch and the TransAm 'Frozen Trucker'
On a second call to the dispatcher, Maddin was told to "hang in there." Half an hour later, he broke the company's orders, unhitched the trailer from the truck, and called his supervisor to tell him that he was seeking help. The supervisor told him not to leave the trailer, but he drove off anyway.
When the repair truck arrived fifteen minutes later, Maddin drove back to meet it. A few days later, TransAm fired Maddin for abandoning the trailer. In a complaint with OSHA (the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration), Maddin claimed that TransAm, in firing him, violated the whistleblower protections of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA).
When the case reached the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court sided with Maddin and against TransAm. But Gorsuch dissented. He pointed out that the STAA did not prevent a company from firing an employee who decided to operate his vehicle. The law forbade the firing of an employee for "refusing to operate a vehicle."
Gorsuch wrote that the "statute only forbids employers from firing employees who 'refuse[] to operate a vehicle' out of safety concerns. And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The trucker in this case wasn't fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. Indeed, his employer gave him the very option the statute says it must: once he voiced safety concerns, TransAm expressly — and by everyone's admission — permitted him to sit and remain where he was for help."
--------
"The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protection option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not," Gorsuch argued. "And there's simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid."
His hands were tied. "Maybe the Department [of Labor] would like such a law, maybe someday Congress will adorn our federal statute books with such a law. But it isn't there yet. And it isn't our job to write one — or to allow the Department to write on in Congress's place."
Democrats attacked Gorsuch, suggesting he preferred to leave a frozen trucker out in the cold. But that wasn't his opinion at all.
It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one.
