Walmart challenges $61M jury verdict in driver wage lawsuit

[Mike]

Attorneys for Walmart are trying to convince a federal appeals court to reverse a district court’s ruling that puts the retail giant on the hook for nearly $61 million in lost wages to truck drivers.

On Aug. 6, attorneys for for Bentonville, Ark.-based Walmart Inc. and a class of approximately 800 Walmart truckers presented oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Walmart is trying to convince the court to reverse a district court’s ruling that puts Walmart on the hook for nearly $61 million in lost wages to the drivers.

The case is another wage lawsuit that boils down to whether or not the employer controlled the drivers. A district court jury found it did and awarded the judgment accordingly.

In January 2017, the jury awarded the class of approximately 800 current and former Walmart truck drivers $61 million in lost wages after it found the company violated the California Labor Code.

Walmart challenges $61M jury verdict in driver wage suit

Walmart is appealing a multimillion dollar judgment after a jury found it violated wage laws by not paying drivers for their 10-hour layover period.

landline.media

 

[Mike]

Highest paid drivers in the industry, and the drivers are still going after more, LOL

 

[Electric Chicken]

Highest paid drivers in the industry, and the drivers are still going after more, LOL

What's that got to do with it? If they were unpaid for time that should be paid then they should get it.

That's like saying I should work Friday for free because "I made enough" doing what I did on Monday through Thursday.

 

[Mike]

What's that got to do with it? If they were unpaid for time that should be paid then they should get it.

That's like saying I should work Friday for free because "I made enough" doing what I did on Monday through Thursday.

Did you read the article? I'm not seeing any time they didn't get paid for. Just a bunch of snowflake California drivers trying to milk more money out of the company for their 10 hour break time.

 

[Electric Chicken]

Did you read the article? I'm not seeing any time they didn't get paid for. Just a bunch of snowflake California drivers trying to milk more money out of the company for their 10 hour break time.

They won the original lawsuit so there must be something to it in California.

 

[Electric Chicken]

Seems like it hinges on this bit right here:



Once you hit that off duty button, you shouldn't have to ask anyone anything.

 

[Mike]

And that's why they pay every walmart driver a set fee for their 10 hour break. For the California drivers, that just isn't enough.

 

[Rigjockey]

[/QUOTE]This outcome will be very interesting.

other than the cab.

Company policy states that drivers must park at a safe and secure location, typically a distribution center. Rubin also claims that drivers cannot conduct personal errands. If drivers want to leave the cab, they must first receive permission. Truckers hauling an expensive load rarely receive that permission.

If a driver leaves his or her truck without permission, Walmart can fire them, according to Rubin’s oral arguments. He mentions how managers inspect layovers to see where a truck is

If your off-duty time is actually not your own personal time then you need to be compensated.

I would say this is a huge violation of HOS, FMCSA rules.
Your are not relieved of all responsibilities and free to pursue your own personal activities, Then that places you on duty.

 

[Mike]

This outcome will be very interesting.

If it stands, it will likely screw over every Walmart driver in the country. A simple change in the work guidelines that says you stay with your truck (like we all already do when out on the road) will likely be removed, as will the "voluntary" pay for 10 hour breaks. That's roughly $250/week that every driver may end up kissing goodbye if something like this is allowed to stand.

 

[Electric Chicken]

If it stands, it will likely screw over every Walmart driver in the country. A simple change in the work guidelines that says you stay with your truck (like we all already do when out on the road) will likely be removed, as will the "voluntary" pay for 10 hour breaks. That's roughly $250/week that every driver may end up kissing goodbye if something like this is allowed to stand.

They can't force a driver to stay with the truck off duty. Especially without pay. That would be straight up illegal.

I'll kiss the $200+ a week goodbye before I'll be responsible for a load off the clock.

 

[Rigjockey]

They can't force a driver to stay with the truck off duty. Especially without pay. That would be straight up illegal.

True! Because having a driver responsible for the load and not able to pursue personal activities would in effect require a driver to be on-duty not driving, line 4.

 

[Mike]

True! Because having a driver responsible for the load and not able to pursue personal activities would in effect require a driver to be on-duty not driving, line 4.

They are no more responsible for the load than any other OTR driver. They are simply required to stay with the truck, rather than leaving it and taking off away from the property where it is located (without permission), and for the task of sleeping in their truck like every OTR driver does, they get paid $42.

High value stuff, no company that I know of allows you to leave the truck unattended other than for taking enough time to eat and shower during your break. Schneider told us how far we had to drive before we could stop, they even told us where we could and couldn't stop, and they required us to remain with the truck. What do they pay us for that? Nothing.

This is nothing more than California drivers twisting things around to get a few more dollars out of a company. The same thing they have done to multiple companies so far, effectively pushing companies like Schneider to move completely out of the state. It has been lawsuit after lawsuit for a few years not against companies by California based drivers. They've become the ambulance chasers of the trucking industry.

And pretty soon, those drivers will likely be getting paid zero for sleeping in their trucks, as it is "voluntary" pay to begin with. And regardless how much they whine about not being able to leave the truck, they will still be right there sleeping in their truck, for no pay, just like the rest of the truck drivers in the industry.

 

[Rigjockey]

They are no more responsible for the load than any other OTR driver. They are simply required to stay with the truck, rather than leaving it and taking off away from the property where it is located (without permission), and for the task of sleeping in their truck like every OTR driver does, they get paid $42.

High value stuff, no company that I know of allows you to leave the truck unattended other than for taking enough time to eat and shower during your break. Schneider told us how far we had to drive before we could stop, they even told us where we could and couldn't stop, and they required us to remain with the truck. What do they pay us for that? Nothing.

This is nothing more than California drivers twisting things around to get a few more dollars out of a company. The same thing they have done to multiple companies so far, effectively pushing companies like Schneider to move completely out of the state. It has been lawsuit after lawsuit for a few years not against companies by California based drivers. They've become the ambulance chasers of the trucking industry.

And pretty soon, those drivers will likely be getting paid zero for sleeping in their trucks, as it is "voluntary" pay to begin with. And regardless how much they whine about not being able to leave the truck, they will still be right there sleeping in their truck, for no pay, just like the rest of the truck drivers in the industry.

I see you have formed your stance on this topic and it is not open to debate.
Carry on!

 

[Electric Chicken]

True! Because having a driver responsible for the load and not able to pursue personal activities would in effect require a driver to be on-duty not driving, line 4.

Exactly and it also turns the driver into some kind of unarmed security guard.

Do they think a driver is actually going to stop a theft?

 

[Electric Chicken]

They are no more responsible for the load than any other OTR driver. They are simply required to stay with the truck, rather than leaving it and taking off away from the property where it is located (without permission), and for the task of sleeping in their truck like every OTR driver does, they get paid $42.

High value stuff, no company that I know of allows you to leave the truck unattended other than for taking enough time to eat and shower during your break. Schneider told us how far we had to drive before we could stop, they even told us where we could and couldn't stop, and they required us to remain with the truck. What do they pay us for that? Nothing.

This is nothing more than California drivers twisting things around to get a few more dollars out of a company. The same thing they have done to multiple companies so far, effectively pushing companies like Schneider to move completely out of the state. It has been lawsuit after lawsuit for a few years not against companies by California based drivers. They've become the ambulance chasers of the trucking industry.

And pretty soon, those drivers will likely be getting paid zero for sleeping in their trucks, as it is "voluntary" pay to begin with. And regardless how much they whine about not being able to leave the truck, they will still be right there sleeping in their truck, for no pay, just like the rest of the truck drivers in the industry.

Only because nobody bothered to challenge Schneider on it.

They have a few different policies that won't hold up in court.

Legally, an off duty driver doesn't have to stay with a truck. Off Duty is, by definition, no responsibility. They want it protected? They can send someone to watch it. They can tell you where to park it, they can't make you stay with it.

An unarmed, untrained driver is not an effective security force anyway. Even on duty, they tell us their policy is to comply with the thief.

 

[Mike]

Legally, an off duty driver doesn't have to stay with a truck. Off Duty is, by definition, no responsibility. They want it protected? They can send someone to watch it. They can tell you where to park it, they can't make you stay with it.

Which is why they pay a flat fee for taking your 10 hour break. Something nobody else does. Probably close to $10k/year in additional salary for sleeping where every other OTR driver already sleeps.

Drivers in every other state are more than happy to get this. The drivers in California were as well until some lawyer seen a way to exploit the situation and get a payday out of it.

I’m honestly surprised that anybody is defending this lawsuit.

 

[Duck]

They won the original lawsuit so there must be something to it in California.

In California, nothing makes sense. Ever.

 

[Electric Chicken]

Which is why they pay a flat fee for taking your 10 hour break. Something nobody else does. Probably close to $10k/year in additional salary for sleeping where every other OTR driver already sleeps.

Drivers in every other state are more than happy to get this. The drivers in California were as well until some lawyer seen a way to exploit the situation and get a payday out of it.

I’m honestly surprised that anybody is defending this lawsuit.

There's a lot more to it than being paid to sleep. You know that as well as I do.

 

[AK7]

Oh and I thought this was about @Sinister getting that paper cut....

 

[Airbourne]

Highest paid drivers in the industry, and the drivers are still going after more, LOL

That's not greed; they're smart. ,,,, Finally, my prayers were answered.

I hauled their freight power-only in WA state for 3 months. ,,, They abused me like there was no tomorrow. ,,, I quit their broker and prayed to see big pay back time for them!

"Wamart-paid-through-the-nose-day" should be a national holiday for truckers