PITTSBURGH – A truck unloader for a merchandise reseller business claims he was disciplined in retaliation for his reporting several alleged safety violations he observed on the job to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Michael Walls of Washington, Pa. filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 20 versus MAC Discount, LLC, M@C Discount, Recommerce412 LLC (doing business as “M@C DISCOUNT”), Kellen Campbell and Shawn Allen (doing business as “M@C DISCOUNT”), all of Tarentum.
“The plaintiff became an employee and started working for the defendants in early July 2021. The plaintiff’s position was truck unloader. The defendants’ business involves the buying and re-selling of returned items/appliances from Lowes, Home Depot, Amazon and the like. Plaintiff worked at a Washington, Pennsylvania location of the defendants’ business,” the suit states.
“Immediately into his employment, the plaintiff observed safety hazards which risked the safety of defendants’ employees, including but not limited to the following: A) Employees riding on the load of a forklift driven by other employees, which is unsafe because employees were not to do this and could be thrown from the forklift or could fall off the moving forklift; B) Employees unloading merchandise from trucks which were not parked flush with the docks, thus endangering employees in the event that a truck lurched backwards; C) Employees unloading trucks which were not parked flush with docks while standing in water, thus endangering employees to possible electrocution; D) Employees standing inside of dumpsters and removing boxes of merchandise off of a forklift, endangering the employees in the event something shifted in the dumpster they were standing in, which could cause them to fall and have merchandise fall on them; E) Dock plates which were wet as well as trucks not placed flush with docks as well as wheel boxes not securely placed under the tires of the trucks to prevent the tires from rolling backwards, endangering employees in the event a truck lurched backward which could result in serious injury or death to the employee; F) Pallets left unsecured leaning against walls which could injure employees in the event the pallet was bumped and then fell onto an employee.”
The suit continues that all of the above were safety hazards which were not permitted to be occurring at the defendants’ workplace, and that the plaintiff reported his observations of the above to his superior.
“Plaintiff, on or about July 9, 2021, filed a complaint with OSHA, alleging the unsafe working conditions and specifying his observations and evidence. This constituted protected activity. The defendants subsequently found out about plaintiff’s filing of a complaint against them with OSHA. The defendants, in response, retaliated against the plaintiff on July 22, 2021 by reprimanding him and sending him home for allegedly not performing job duties,” the suit says.
“The above-described actions by the defendants were done as pretext and done in retaliation for the plaintiff engaging in protected activity of filing an OSHA complaint against them. The defendants then fired the plaintiff on or about July 30, 2021 for pre-textual reasons when the true and sole reason was in retaliation for the plaintiff reporting the safety violations in the report he filed with OSHA.”
For one count of unlawful firing in violation of the Public Policy Exception to the Pennsylvania At-Will Employment Doctrine, the plaintiff is seeking a trial by jury, compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and any other relief to which he may be entitled, whether legal or equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Noah Geary in Washington, Pa.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-008847
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com