Opinion ID: 2971544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Disciplinary Action Taken Against Mr. Eash

Text: Mr. Eash has worked for Roadway since 1988 as a commercial truck driver, operating out of Roadway’s Copley, Ohio, terminal. After some years, relations between Mr. Eash and his employer deteriorated. Since late 1997, Mr. Eash has received a total of nine warning letters for various infractions. The first two warning letters, relating to fatigue, were the subject of prior litigation between the parties. See Eash v. Roadway Express, ARB No. 00-061, ALJ No. 98STA-28, slip. op. (Dec. 31, 2002). The instant appeal involves a challenge by Mr. Eash to an additional seven disciplinary letters. Mr. Eash alleged that five of the letters were issued in retaliation for filing the earlier litigation. The remaining two letters were issued for: 1) a failure to complete a trip in the allotted time due to fatigue; and 2) a refusal to drive in inclement weather. In order to resolve this appeal we need to consider only the facts surrounding the -3- Nos. 03-4074, 03-4115 Roadway Express, Inc. & Larry Eash v. Administrative Review Board warning letter for the refusal to drive based on inclement weather. Most of the eastern United States experienced a significant winter storm on January 14th and 15th, 1999. Substantial amounts of snow and freezing rain fell in the area surrounding Roadway’s Copley, Ohio terminal. On the evening of January 13, 1999, Mr. Eash departed the Copley terminal and arrived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the early morning hours of January 14. Mr. Eash was dispatched to make the return trip to Copley, but on arrival was not dispatched to make another run to Pittsburgh because of inclement weather. He went to his home approximately twenty-six miles from Roadway’s terminal and slept. Mr. Eash awoke in the late afternoon and called Roadway’s dispatch center asking to be excused from his dispatch that evening because of the weather. Mr. Eash observed freezing rain near his home and saw a television report advising the public not to drive unless it was an emergency because of unsafe road conditions. The Roadway dispatcher advised Mr. Eash that other drivers were reporting for work and that he would be on call that evening. Mr. Eash called the Roadway terminal again at around 7:30 p.m. asking to be excused from his dispatch, stating conditions near his home had become worse. He stated that based on his experience, including a prior accident in icy conditions, he felt it was unsafe to drive to Pittsburgh that night. Again, the dispatcher refused to relieve him and informed Mr. Eash that he should consider their conversation a work call. Mr. Eash attempted to drive to the Copley terminal, but called Roadway dispatch a quarter of the way there and again asked to be relieved. Mr. Eash stated he nearly lost control of his personal vehicle twice and believed that conditions were too dangerous to operate a commercial vehicle. The dispatcher told Mr. Eash to, “do what -4- Nos. 03-4074, 03-4115 Roadway Express, Inc. & Larry Eash v. Administrative Review Board you have to do and I’ll do what I have to do.” On January 19, 1999, Mr. Eash received a warning letter for failure to show up for work after accepting a dispatch.