Shank

Shank v. CRST Van Expedited CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 14, 2015G049844California9,871 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CRST operates a nationwide shipping company using trucks operated by two drivers. Training of a new driver includes 28 days on the road with a lead driver, whose responsibilities include day-to-day supervision, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the trainee is qualified and should be hired. The lead driver has no authority to hire, promote, discipline, or terminate the trainee. A fleet manager supervises both the lead driver and the trainee and is their direct supervisor. Tuition at the time plaintiff became a trainee was apparently $3,600.1 CRST advances tuition in exchange for the trainee’s agreement to work for the company for at least six months after completion of training and licensing. The trainee reimburses tuition through payroll deductions during that six-month period. Plaintiff began training with Wilson as her lead driver. From the first day of training Wilson made comments to plaintiff, including: he “didn’t have a problem” helping her buy “female products”; “[w]hat happens on this truck, stays on this truck”; “[w]hat happens between two consenting adults is nobody’s business but theirs”; “if [plaintiff] had a hammer and nail,”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.