• 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
  • GET STARTED
  • 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
Read it on Beacon
  • 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
You read HRMorning's newsletter. Beacon's Daily Brief is the version tuned to you: it skips what you've already read and leads with what you've asked Beacon about. Get your Daily Brief →

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.

Read it on Beacon
Open this article in Beacon, from HRMorning, and ask how it applies to your company. Every answer names its source.
Read it on Beacon
Get HRMorning's newsletter tuned to you every morning: your Daily Brief on Beacon →
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.

Get it free with a Beacon account. Beacon keeps your company's HR context at hand, and every answer names its source.
Create my free account

Free Training & Resources

White Papers

Remote Work Requests Are Testing Your ADA Process, Are You Ready?

Provided by AbsenceSoft

Webinars

Every Family Counts: How to Build an Adoption-Friendly Workplace

Provided by Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption

White Papers

Completion Rates Aren’t a Training Strategy

Provided by Navex

White Papers

Maven’s State of Women’s and Family Health Benefits — 2025 Report

Provided by Maven Clinic

SPONSORED CONTENT

Performance Management

Talent Management

sponsored content
Employee Recognition Program: What the First 6 Months Reveal About Whether It Will Last

Courtesy of INSPIRUS

Compensation

Recruiting

sponsored content
Salary Benchmarking: 6 Choices That Decide Whether Your Pay Data Holds Up

Courtesy of MARSH

Employment Law

Policy & Procedures

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

Courtesy of NAVEX

Further Reading

  • Employment Law
Court Orders Employer to Pay $750K in Back Wages, Damages in FLSA Dispute

When employers fail to honor wage and hour settlement agreements, the Department of Labor’s next step is to pursue a court order. In ...

  • Employment Law
New FMLA Ruling Puts HR On Notice About Expectant Fathers’ Leave Rights

A new ruling in a case from Alabama provides valuable insight for HR pros on the requirements of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). ...

  • Employment Law
FMLA Notice Requirements: What a New Appeals Court Ruling Means for HR

What exactly are the FMLA notice requirements employees must meet before taking leave? The answer isn’t simple – and getting it wro...

  • Employment Law
Fired for Getting Hurt? Court Orders Employer to Pay $141K

Getting hurt shouldn’t cost you your job. A federal district court in Oregon has ruled that the U.S. Postal Service should pay more t...

  • Employment Law
Telework as Accommodation: Was It Required Here?

A new EEOC lawsuit is taking aim at an employer that allegedly violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to allow tele...

  • Employment Law
Sirius XM Wins Dismissal of AI Hiring Bias Lawsuit

An applicant who alleged Sirius XM’s hiring software repeatedly screened him out because he’s Black recently had his complaint dismisse...

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS Beacon, free. Check it before you say it.

GET STARTED FREE
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 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.

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Copyright© 2026 HRMorning
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.