• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

HRMorning

  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
  • HR DEEP DIVES
  • PODCASTS
    • VOICES OF HR
    • WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP TODAY
  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • HR Technology
  • Payroll
  • Management
  • Women’s Leadership
  • More
    • Talent Management
    • Performance Management
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans
  • Employment Law

Whistleblower Lawsuit – Company Must Pay Worker Nearly $15K

Carol Warner
By: Carol Warner
  • Share on

About the Author

For nearly two decades, Carol Warner has analyzed the legal and financial realities behind workplace decisions, covering employment law, benefits, payroll and HR technology. She translates complex legal updates, regulatory shifts and vendor claims into plain language that HR teams can act on. Her focus is simple: What does this mean for employers, and what should they do next? Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Show Less
Last Updated: June 10, 2024
3 minute engagement
OSHA investigates whistleblower complaints

An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld an OSHA finding that an employer in Houston illegally fired a worker who exercised his rights under the federal Whistleblower Protection Program – and ordered the company to pay $14,945 in back pay, interest and compensatory damages.

This case provides yet another example of how managers’ mistakes can be very expensive for employers.

Driver allegedly ordered to violate DOT reg

A truck driver for Crane Masters Inc. said he was given a driving assignment that would put him over the Department of Transportation (DOT) hours-of-service regulation for commercial motor vehicle drivers.

The driver said he told his supervisor that he couldn’t take the assignment because he had worked 19 hours the previous day and had not gotten the legally required amount of time off before returning to work. To this, the supervisor allegedly responded that he could “hit the gate” if he didn’t take the assignment.

The driver said he didn’t take the assignment and was fired that afternoon.  

The driver then filed an online whistleblower complaint and found another job.

OSHA investigates whistleblower lawsuit

An OSHA investigation found the driver notified the employer that it would be unsafe for him to operate a commercial vehicle as he hadn’t had the appropriate amount of time off between shifts. OSHA also found the company responded by terminating the driver’s employment.

In OSHA’s view, the alleged conduct amounted to a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Program, which protects workers from retaliation for under an applicable law.

Applicable here, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act prevents employers from retaliating against an employee who refuses to drive a commercial vehicle because the operation of the vehicle would violate a safety regulation of the vehicle.

As a result, OSHA sided with the truck driver and ordered the company to provide relief.

The company challenged OSHA’s finding, and an ALJ heard the case.

Judge backs OSHA’s call

The ALJ upheld OSHA’s finding. Importantly, the ALJ said the preponderance of the evidence showed that the driver had worked “19 hours straight on June 4.”

And according to the DOT regulation, the driver “should have been off duty for 10 consecutive hours before driving again,” the ALJ explained. Thus, taking the assignment would’ve been a violation of the reg.

The ALJ also rejected the employer’s argument that the driver voluntarily quit. In light of the evidence showing the truck driver’s recent 19-hour shift, the ALJ found the driver’s testimony was more credible than the supervisor’s testimony.

But even if the driver had quit, then his “resignation was effectively a constructive discharge,” the ALJ determined, noting that the evidence showed the supervisor gave the driver “no viable choice: either [he] could continue to violate the hours-of service rules … or he could ‘hit the gate,’ i.e. he could be fired.”

Upholding OSHA’s finding, the ALJ ordered the employer to:

  • pay the driver $14,945 in back pay, interest and compensatory damages
  • expunge the driver’s employment record, and
  • post a notice to employees about whistleblower protections.

“Congress enacted the world’s first whistleblower protections in 1778 to ensure that people who come forward to report illegal behaviors or actions don’t suffer for doing what’s right,” OSHA Regional Administrator Eric S. Harbin in Dallas. “In this case, Crane Masters Inc. was held accountable for retaliating against an employee who acted responsibly by raising their concerns about endangering themselves and others by operating a commercial vehicle without sufficient rest.”

“Once again, the Department of Labor has vigorously enforced the rights of employees who report safety or regulatory violations,” said Regional Solicitor John Rainwater. “Whistleblower rights are crucial to the safety of employees and the public at-large. A federal judge upheld the department’s contention that Crane Masters wrongly retaliated against a hard-working employee for doing what’s right.”

Info: Federal Judge Upholds DOL Order for Crane Company to Pay Truck Driver Terminated for Refusing to Violate Federal Safety Rules, 6/4/24.

Filed under
  • Employment Law
  • Share on

Get the HRMorning Newsletter

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form

Free Training & Resources

White Papers

The Six Steps to a Healthy Employee Engagement Program

Provided by Terryberry

White Papers

Investing in HR Software

White Papers

One Botched Harassment Investigation Away From a Lawsuit

Provided by Navex

White Papers

AI HR Prompts

SPONSORED CONTENT

Employment Law

Policy & Procedures

sponsored content
Policy Rollout: 4 Checkpoints That Show Employees Got the Message

Courtesy of NAVEX

Benefits

Staff Administration

sponsored content
PEO ROI: 3 Numbers to Know Before You Leave Patchwork HR

Courtesy of TRINET

Talent Management

sponsored content
Employee Retention Strategies: 5 That Work When You Can’t Pay More

Courtesy of INSPIRUS

Further Reading

  • Employment Law
She said she was paid less than males — so why did her bias lawsuit fall flat?

She said she was the only female doing the job, and that males were paid more. So why did her wage bias lawsuit fall flat? A federal app...

  • Employment Law
Restaurant Forks Over $600K to End Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Four female employees in Washington state said they endured ongoing sexual harassment at work – but management didn’t do anything to st...

  • Employment Law
White Anchor Fired After Snoop Dogg Quote Loses Race Discrimination Suit

A media company’s decision to fire a white anchor after she made a racially insensitive remark on live TV did not amount to race discrimi...

  • Employment Law
She claimed retaliation, but she was missing this 1 simple thing

To prove unlawful retaliation, three critical requirements must be met. And when any one of them is missing, the retaliation claim cannot s...

  • Employment Law
State: Snap Pays $15M After Women Told to ‘Wait Their Turn’

Snap Inc. – the parent company of Snapchat – has agreed to pay $15 million to resolve gender discrimination, harassment and retaliation...

  • Employment Law
Chamber of Commerce Files Lawsuit to Block $100K Fee on H-1B Visas

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is suing to block the Trump administration’s new $100,000 fee on H-1B visas, arguing it would drive up labor...

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation
  • Policy & Procedures
  • Wellness
  • Staff Departure
  • HR Career & Self-Care
  • Health Care
  • Retirement Plans
  • DEI

HRMorning, part of the Rover Insights Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day's headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Powered By Rover Insights
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Copyright© 2026 Rover Insights
HRMorning Logo

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.