Trucking firm Prime Inc. settles court battles

|tab|

|ret||ret||tab|

|ret||ret||tab|

Prime Inc.'s legal team has had a busy summer in court. Prime has been defending itself against allegations of federal leasing violations, unlawful workers' compensation practices and sexual harassment against a driver-trainer. |ret||ret||tab|

The Springfield-based trucking firm received positive outcomes in the leasing violations and workers' compensation suits.|ret||ret||tab|

But on Sept. 19 a federal jury in Springfield awarded $95,000 to a female driver who alleged sexual harassment against her driver-trainer. Both the driver, Cynthia Huffman, and the driver-trainer, Abel Lormand, were employed by Prime, according to a release issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC filed the suit along with three women, including Huffman.|ret||ret||tab|

The lawsuit alleged that the three women were sexually harassed by their driver-trainers while on over-the-road training trips, and that Prime failed to take prompt and appropriate action to prevent or correct the driver-trainers' unlawful conduct.|ret||ret||tab|

The jury found in favor of Prime on two of the claims of harassment. The jury's award to Huffman included punitive damages of $80,000 against the company and $10,000 against Lormand. Another $5,000 was awarded in compensatory damages, the release said. The verdict followed a 10-day trial.|ret||ret||tab|

|ret||ret||tab|

Leasing violations|ret||ret||tab|

In August, Prime's defense ended a six-year court battle with the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Associa-tion in Prime's favor.|ret||ret||tab|

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Aug. 21 upheld a 2002 Federal District Court's ruling that said OOIDA's class action lawsuit alleging federal leasing violations was inappropriate. |ret||ret||tab|

The suit claimed that Prime had violated the federal motor carrier truth-in-leasingregulations by unlawfully retaining funds that belonged to truckers with whom Prime contracted. OOIDA sought to enforce the leasing regulations through the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995. |ret||ret||tab|

"The court ruled that the legislative intent was for the (Interstate Commerce Commission) not to be retroactive in application and therefore, these plaintiffs and issues were not appropriate," said Steve Crawford, Prime's general counsel.|ret||ret||tab|

In August 2002, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Judge Dean Whipple dismissed the lease violation claims of the two co-plaintiffs, OOIDA members Marshall Johnson and Jerry Vanboetzelaer. |ret||ret||tab|

Whipple ruled that leases with Prime pre-dated the effective date of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act Jan. 1, 1996 guaranteeing a trucker's private right of action against a carrier.|ret||ret||tab|

OOIDA officials said the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling to uphold Whipple's dismissal does not spell the end of the case.|ret||ret||tab|

"We think the judges should take another look at the issue," said Todd Spencer, OOIDA's executive vice president.|ret||ret||tab|

Spencer said OOIDA officials plan to ask the court to review the case en banc, or in front of the full panel of judges.|ret||ret||tab|

Defense of the federal leasing violations suit cost Prime nearly $500,000. Crawford said Prime is petitioning the court for a portion of the legal fess expended in defense.|ret||ret||tab|

|ret||ret||tab|

Workers' compensation|ret||ret||tab|

Another OOIDA class action suit, this time alleging unlawful workers' compensation practices, was dismissed June 17 in Greene County Circuit Court by Judge J. Miles Sweeney. |ret||ret||tab|

According to the complaint, Prime deducted weekly premiums from plaintiff Jeffrey Warta's compensation, purportedly to pay premiums for workers' compensation insurance. Warta leased equipment from Prime. After sustaining severe injuries in April 2002 while performing services for Prime, Warta applied for workers' compensation benefits.|ret||ret||tab|

The complaint alleges that Prime intervened in Warta's compensation proceeding as Warta's employer and was thereby able to direct Warta's medical treatment and obtain other benefits pursuant to Missouri's workers' compensation law. Missouri's workers' compensation law prohibits an employer from charging an employee for workers' compensation coverage.|ret||ret||tab|

OOIDA has filed an appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Spencer said.|ret||ret||tab|

"We're moving freight across the country. So we're always involved, unfortunately, with legal issues," Crawford said. "But these types of allegations we take them personally. These are allegations against our company, our culture, our programs (and) our business model. When someone comes in and tells you your business model is not only flawed, but is breaking the law, we take that very seriously."|ret||ret||tab|

[[In-content Ad]]