Unexplained discrepancies, flaws in documentation take case to jury

Some employees are complainers, and you might be inclined to respond with a snide comment or a knowing side glance to a friend. Similarly, you may have strong grounds for termination and are not overly bothered by hiccups and the documentation process. But beware: That kind of behavior might be enough to allow an otherwise weak case to get to a jury, as shown in the following unpublished decision.

Overly careful employee

Danny Salas drove trucks for the grocery chain Smart & Final for more than two decades. James Moore and Victor Diaz were his direct supervisors.

Salas claims to be an excellent employee. Smart & Final gave him several “Safe Driver Awards.” He had a “leadership role in reporting recurring safety issues and other operational problems” to the company’s management. He often identified safety issues, including trailers that exceeded legal weight limits, and demanded safety issues be fixed before he would start deliveries.

Since 2015, Vice President of Logistics Mark Witt began to express his obvious displeasure when Salas reported safety issues the drivers were concerned about. Witt often rolled his eyes, sighed loudly, shook his head, and said things like, “Here we go again!”; “Not more of this BS”; and “We’re going to keep cubing them out.” The last statement is about loading trailers to maximum capacity.

Moore called Salas to his desk to review Salas’s daily driving logs 20 to 25 times between 2015 and 2017, when Moore went on leave. He sometimes asked Salas why he was in the yard so long. Salas explained it was because he had an overweight load or a repair.