Yde v. Viking Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
| Decision Date | 02 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | A18-0030 |
| Parties | Bradley Yde, Appellant, v. Viking Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
Affirmed
Stearns County District Court
Arlo H. Vande Vegte, Arlo H. Vande Vegte, P.A., Long Lake, Minnesota (for appellant)
Holly M. Robbins, Alice D. Kirkland, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Hooten, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Bradley Yde appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to respondent Viking Coca-Cola Bottling Company and dismissing appellant's retaliatory-discharge claim. We affirm.
Appellant worked as a delivery driver for respondent from April 11, 2012 to May 13, 2015. Appellant received and signed a copy of respondent's Vehicle Safety Policy as part of his training for this position, and agreed to abide by its guidelines. The Vehicle Safety Policy provides for a Driver Safety Committee to "review incidents and accidents regarding any company-owned motorized vehicle." This committee assigns "points" to drivers for accidents or driving infractions. In the event of an accident, the Vehicle Safety Policy requires drivers to complete an accident report form and report the accident to the company within 12 hours. Failure to report an accident "may result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination," and any points charged to the driver for the accident are doubled for failure to timely report. When a driver accumulates eight or more points within a three-year period, the driver is deemed an unacceptable risk and will no longer be employed as a driver.
Appellant was involved in multiple accidents with his company vehicle during his employment with respondent. The Vehicle Safety Committee sent appellant a letter on January 24, 2013, after reviewing reports of accidents on September 14, 2012, December 11, 2012, and December 19, 2012. The committee determined that the two December incidents were preventable. Appellant was assigned four points for those accidents. The letter also reminded appellant that if he received eight points or was involved in more accidents in the next three years, his ability to drive a company vehicle would be jeopardized. Appellant signed this letter. The Vehicle Safety Committee sentappellant another letter on September 25, 2013, assigning him three points for an accident in which he was involved on September 7, 2013. The letter again reminded appellant that if he received eight points or was involved in more accidents in the next three years, his ability to operate a company vehicle would be jeopardized. Appellant signed this letter to acknowledge receipt. The committee also sent appellant another letter that same day stating that appellant had acquired a total of seven points. Appellant also signed this letter to acknowledge receipt.
Appellant notified respondent of on-duty injuries on five separate occasions. Appellant filed a first-report-of-injury form1 on August 3, 2012, after a pallet-jack handle hit him in the leg. Appellant reported another injury on November 24, 2012, after falling while walking to his truck in the parking lot. He reported a third injury on August 20, 2013, when a loaded product cart ran over his foot. Appellant reported a fourth injury on November 8, 2013, after his left knee painfully popped when he stood up at work. He pursued and settled a workers' compensation claim for this fourth injury.
Appellant's fifth injury report involved an injury to his left arm. Appellant had previously reported a nonwork-related left-arm injury to his supervisor, Dean Dufner. Appellant reported that he injured his elbow on November 1, 2014 on his personal time, not at work. He went to the emergency room promptly. Dufner forwarded the personal-injury report to human resources. Later, appellant reported to Dufner that he fell and injured the same arm while working on November 25, 2014. Appellant told Dufner on December 3 that he was injured while trying to catch falling Coke products.
Appellant visited a doctor for his arm injury. On December 8, 2014, the doctor wrote a note taking appellant off of work until he completed further tests. The doctor diagnosed appellant with a torn left biceps tendon. On December 19, 2014, after determining that the injury was nonwork related, based on evidence that appellant had received ongoing medical treatment since injuring his arm at home, respondent's insurance company denied appellant's claim for workers' compensation benefits. On December 22, 2014, appellant's doctor approved his return to work with some restrictions. Appellant had a surgery to repair his biceps tendon on January 14, 2015. Appellant's doctor approved his return to work without restrictions on March 10, 2015. Appellant filed a claim petition for workers' compensation benefits for these injuries on March 26, 2015.2
Employee Charles Booth told appellant's supervisor, Dufner, that Booth saw appellant back his trailer into another trailer on April 25, 2015. Appellant denied doing so. Steve Wright, another employee, also told Dufner that he heard two trailers rub together, but did not see the accident occur. Dufner looked at the trailers and noticed what he determined to be a fresh scratch along the left side of the trailer that appellant allegedly backed into. He reported the incident to branch manager Dan Jacobs.
Lisa Zolin, the human-resources manager for respondent, investigated the April 25 accident after it was reported. She stated that she generally handwrites her interview notes and then types summaries later, filling in more detailed information. Zolin and Jacobs interviewed appellant about the incident and appellant denied causing the damage. Zolin and Jacobs also interviewed Wright and Booth. Wright told Zolin that he was inside the building and on the phone with Booth when Booth said that appellant was going to hit the trailer. Wright also told Zolin that he talked with appellant after the accident and took pictures of the damage. Booth told Zolin that he saw appellant hit a trailer in the docking area at the end of the day on April 25. Booth said that after he, Wright, and appellant looked at the trailer, Wright told appellant to report it and appellant said
Zolin and Jacobs also reviewed surveillance video from April 25, taken from two different surveillance cameras. Zolin testified at her deposition that they Zolin stated that, after reviewing the footage multiple times, she and Jacobs were able to see the trailer move or shake for a few seconds as if it had been hit before the striking trailer was parked at the loading dock. From the video and review of drivers' route assignments, Zolin concluded that the striking trailer was assigned to appellant that day.Zolin testified that it did not occur to her at the time that the video should have been preserved.3
Zolin also testified in her deposition that she reports monthly to the CEO concerning open workers' compensation claims. She stated that the only concerns the CEO has ever expressed concerning appellant were over the number of appellant's workplace accidents and whether appellant can perform his job safely. Zolin testified that she informed the CEO that she did not believe there were any concerns about appellant's ability to safely do his job other than the safety concerns about his driving. Zolin expressed that she had her own concerns about the validity of appellant's November 2014 arm-injury claim, given its temporal proximity and similarity to a reported nonwork injury.
Jacobs testified that a fleet manager notified him of the April 25 accident, stating that appellant hit a trailer. Jacobs stated that he watched the surveillance video and saw appellant enter the premises and back his rig into a parked trailer. Jacobs saw the other trailer move, and then watched appellant finish docking his trailer. Jacobs further testified that he spoke to Wright, who told him that he had watched appellant back into a trailer. Jacobs later submitted a written correction stating that Wright had told Jacobs that he heard the trailers scrape together but did not see it firsthand. Jacobs testified that he was unaware of appellant's workers' compensation claims; he knew only that appellant had some work restrictions based on injuries. Jacobs stated that the decision to terminate appellant'semployment was based on the number of points on appellant's driving record. Jacobs explained that, under company policy,
In his deposition, appellant identified two former coworkers who he claimed would say that he had not crashed into the trailer. He also identified a number of other people who he said were not present at the April 25 incident, but who believed that appellant did not crash into another trailer.4
Appellant testified that he knew that respondent required its drivers to report accidents. He also knew that he was responsible for calling his supervisor and filling out the initial paperwork. Appellant testified that, when he returned from taking his loads out on April 25, 2015, he started trying to back his truck into the docks. Appellant stated that he readjusted his trailer as he was backing up and, at some point, he could no longer see the back end of his trailer. He also...
To continue reading
Request your trial