TONE, EDUART Et Al v. NAUGATUCK COCA-COLA AKA COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY Et Al, UWY-CV23-6070155-S, 24846827 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 10, 2023) (2024)

`

`c Indeed, because Eduart exceeded the metrics therefore he becamethe driver
`of the month nght before he was fired as detailed below.
`
`In Eduart’s seven years working for Coca Cola he never calied out or missed
`d.
`a work day and never has been written up or received any repnmand.
`
`a, On April 30, 2016 while Operating one of Coca-Cola's vehicles Eduart was
`4
`InvOIVEd In a Serious motor vehicle accident thru no fault of his own.
`
`6 Therein Edvert suffered injury to his chest.
`
`left shoulder. night hip and right
`
`knee
`
`c. Whence, Eduart filed a Claim pursuant to the State of Connecticut Workers’
`Compensation Commission (WCC) Act (“Act”) that is pending in the WCC.Fitth
`District, bearing Claim Number 500266513.
`
`d. Virtually from day one, the Defendants vigorously and frivolously resisted
`fulfilling their obligation to Eduart under the “Act’. whereupon his attomey in said ciaim
`has requested that the Fifth DistrictAdministrative Law Judge add issues of
`
`unreasonaole delay and unreasonable contest to an upcoming Formai Hearing (i.e. trial)
`that's been delayed by the Defendants.
`
`5 This evineas the seed for Eduard’sfiring that led Defendants to discharge or cause
`Eduart to be discharged, disciplined and discriminated in violation of Connecticut
`
`General Statute section 31-290a, which states in pertinent part:
`
`{a} No employer who is subject to the provisions of this chapter shail: (1)
`Discharge or cause to be discharged, or in any manner discipline or discriminate
`against any employee because the employee has filed a claim for workers”
`compensation benefits or otherwise exercised the rights afforded to him pursuant
`to the provisions of this chapter, or (2) deliberately misinform or dekberately
`2
`
`

`

`dissuade an employee trom filing a claim for workers’ compensation benefits or.
`on oF after October 1, 2021, a claim for payment of benefits from the Connecticut
`Essential Workers COVID-19 Assistance Fund.
`
`(5) Any employee who is so discharged, disciplined or discriminated against or
`who has been deliberately misinformed or deliberately dissuaded from filing a
`claim for workers compensation benefits or a ciaim for payment of benefits from
`the Connecticut Essential Workers COVID-19 Assistance Fund may ether: (1)
`Bringacivil action in the superior court for the judicial district where the employer
`has ts principal office for the reinstatement of his previous job, payment of back
`Wages and reestadlishment of employee benefits to which he would have
`otherwise been entitled if he had not been discriminated against or discharged
`and any other damages caused by such discrimination or discharge. The court
`may also award punitive damages. Any employee who prevails in such a civil
`acon shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be taxed by the
`court ..
`
`& Defendants’ violaton thereof proximately caused Eduart to suffer huge economic
`
`and non-economic damages for which he is entitled full and fair compensation as weil
`
`as punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the aforesaid
`
`Connecticut General Statute section 31-290a(b)
`
`
`
`1-5. Paragraphs 1-5 of Count | are incorporated here as Paragraphs 1-5
`
`6.
`
` @ OnAugust 17, 2022 August 16, 2022, Defendant, Todd Anderson,initiated a
`
`telephone call with Eduart On said telephone call with Defendant, Todd Anderson,
`
`a
`
`(1) Jason Lane, Subordinate toTodd Anderson with title of Fleet Manager.
`
`(2) Mike Prat, Union Steward
`
`3
`
`

`

`b. With the consent of the Eduart. Jerina listened in to ail of said phone cail.
`
`recording part thereof.
`
`7. During said telephone call, Defendant, Todd Anderson, fired Eduart from his position
`
`with the Defendants for alleged “falsification of DOT (i.e. US Department of
`
`Transportation) hours of service records on four occasions (a federal crime, if so)... .”.
`
`Perversely Defendant, Todd Anderson, had already sent a leer to Eduart the day
`
`before -- and, although already fired, again in a letter dated September 8, 2022 - -
`
`
`
`( Exhibit A and B. respectively) wherein he had stated ~. ..| terminated your
`
`employment due to falsification of DOT (i.e US Department of Transportation) hours of
`
`service records
`
`8. That such a charge is manifestiy untrue is the fact that Eduart and the Defendants’
`
`other Naugatuck based drivers was/were exempt from said DOT hours of service
`
`records pursuant to 49 CFR 395.1 (up to date as of 12/12/2022 and operative at all ume
`
`relevant hereto), which states in pertinent part:
`
`Titie 49 - Transportation, Subtitle B - Other Regulations Relating io
`Transportation. Chapter tll - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Depart-
`ment of Transportation Subchapter 8 - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
`Part 395 - Hours of Service of Drivers, Subpart A - General
`
`Authority: 49 USC 604, 21104(e}, 31133, 31136, 31137, 31502: sec 173, Pub
`L 103-311. 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 229, Pub.L. 106-159 (as added and
`transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119
`Stat 1144, 1726.1743, 1744), 113 Stat. 1748, 1773; sec. 41335, Pub. L. 109-59,
`419 Stat. 1144, 1744: sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830: sec
`5208(b). Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537: and 49 CFR 787. Source: 33 FR
`19758, Dec 25, 1968, unless otherwise noted.
`
`§ 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.
`
`4
`
`

`

`This content is from the eCFR and ts authortative but unofficial.
`
`(2) General.
`
`(1) The rules in this part apply to all motor carriers and drivers. except as
`provided in paragraphs (b} through (x) of this section
`
`{e) Short-haul operations -
`
`(1) 450 air-mile radius driver A driver is exempt from the reauirements of
`§§ 395.8 and 395.11 if
`
`() The driver operates within a 150 air-mile radius (172.6 statute miles) of
`the normal work reporting location:
`
`(li) The driver, except a driver-salesperson, returns to the work reporting
`jocation and is released from work within 14 consecutive hours.
`
`(A) Aproperty-carrying commercia! motor vehicle driver has at least
`(it)
`19 consecutive hours off-duty separating each 14 hours on-duty.
`
`(B) A passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver has at
`least § consecutive hours off-duty separating each 14 hours on-duty, and
`
`{tw} The motor carrier that employs the driver maintains and retains for 3
`peniod of § months accurate and true tme records showing.
`
`(A) The time the driver reports for duty each day:
`
`(8) The total number of hours the driver is on-duty each day.
`
`(C) The time the driver ss released from duty each day: and
`
`(D) The total time for the preceding 7 days in accordance with §
`395.8{j}{2) for dnvers used for the first ime or intermittently.
`
`9. Moreover. some three years ago Coca-Cola began using an Electronic Log Book
`
`from Geotag for, inter alia, managing operations and payroll. Geotab’s Website does
`
`not state that rt is connected to the government. Rather. it prociaims:
`
`About Geotag
`
`

`

`Connecting telematics to businesses and making roads safer for everyone.
`
`A giobal leader in loT and connected vehicies
`
`Geotab is advanc:ng security, connecting commercial vehicles to the internet and
`providing web-based analytics to help customers better manage their fleets.
`Geotabd’s open platform and Marketplace allow both small and large businesses
`t0 automate operations by integrating vehicle data with their other data assets
`
`As an loT hub,the in-vehicle device provides additional! functionality through |OX
`Add-Ons. Processing billions of data points a day, Geotag leverages data
`analytics and machine learning to help customers improve productivity, operate
`sustainably, optimize fleets through the reduction of fuel consumption, enhance
`driver safety, and achieve reguiatory compliance.
`
`Since being established in 2000, Geotab Inc. has grown from a smaii, family
`business to a global leader in solutions for fleet management and vehicie
`tracking. in 2020, Geotab became the first telematics company to achieve 2
`milion connected vehicles built on 2 single, open platform. and has now
`surpassed 3 millon subscribers worldwide.
`
`10. When Geotab was first introduced every single driver went on “violation”, because
`
`nobody knew about that system since they were neverofficially trained despite Geoitab's
`
`extensive training programs such as those noted on its website
`
`11 Management dy adhocism, not Coca-Cola's purported “work rules” or the terms of
`
`collective bargaining agreement with its union, was the reality. Every morning when
`
`Grivers started the work day management and supervisors changed their hours from ON
`
`to OFF because otherwise they had no hours to work (drive) and this has been going on
`
`until now The Geotab considers all hours as “driving” even when packing at a grocery
`
`siore This was used as a tracking method for driver's pay (Eduart has paystubs to
`
`prove overtime)
`
`

`

`12 Sack then,drivers had a meeting on how to use. change or “fix" the Geotab when
`they were in “violation”. Again, it was the management who toid them to change the
`status from "ON" to “OFF” and management stated that * driving time won't change and
`make sure to disconnect the Geotab after the pest-trip” {Eduart has pictures of the
`supervisors Computer Yessena Morales and Tony Lopes. who toid him to take a picture
`of the screen to remember how to do those changes). The reason was to train the new
`Crivers, because Eduart had been asked to and has trained new drivers consistently
`through the years
`
`13, In sum, Defendants:
`
`2 Published a defamatory statement directly conceming Eduart.
`® The defamatory statement identified Eduart to third persons to whom it was
`published.
`
`¢ Ecuard's reputation suffered injury as a resuit of the defamatory statement.
`
`14 Defendants’ Defamation Per Se of Eduart caused Eduart to suffer huge economic
`and non-economic damages for which he is entitied fuil and fair compensation as well
`8S pumive Gamages and attorney's fees and costs permitted by law.
`
`COUNTill: DEFENDANTS UNINTENTIONALINFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
`
`1-12. Paragraphs 1-12 of Count Hl are incorporated here as Paragraphs 7-12.
`
`

`

`2 In addition to being falsely branded as a criminal as aforesaid. Eduant’s
`13.
`‘termination’ was executed “Star Chamber’ like as follows.
`d, On August 11. 2022 Eduart was cailed into the office not knowing what was
`happening. Eduart saw Codi walk into the driver's room after he was apparently
`Questioned prior. Jason asked and escorted Eduart into Todd's office (manager)
`There were a few people in the office: George (union rep), Mike (warehouse union rep).
`Jason (head supervisor), Todd (manager) and a virtual meeting on a laptop. There was
`also 3 screen with Eduart's logbook to be seen. Eduart was was greeted bythe “virtual”
`memders as it being an audit and asked him if he had made some changes on that date
`and whether he had done it for anyone else too. Eduart stated he did so as well as
`doing it for Cody and wastold to do this by the supervisor on duty. Eduart was asked
`for the name but he refused to give it to them because they would fire him
`Then.they asked there's a group that are doing this, but Eduart did not want to give
`them names They told Eduart to step out and called Codi back in. Eduart was then
`informed that he was suspended until further investigation is dene and told to hand over
`his belongings George and Mike immediately filed a grievance against them.
`¢ Eduart was shocked that he got suspended because he wastold that the
`Company !$ going to make further investigations, but on November 17, 2022 Eduart got
`4 call from the manager that Coca-Cola “terminated” him on the day before. A copy of
`the letter was supposed to have been mailed. but it took a couple of days to get to
`Eduart. The union was not notified
`
`d Since the day of the suspension the union filed a grievance for wrongful
`termunation Eduart was informed that he would be placed on suspension because there
`would be an investigation. However, no-one else was placed on suspension while this
`
`8
`
`

`

`was supposed to be ongoing. While both Cody and Eduart were escorted out of the
`
`buriding and were ordered to return their belongings immediately. Cody and Eduart
`
`gave names on their statements, but there was no follow up
`
`© Aweek later, on August 17th. Eduan received said termination call and was
`
`given the option to resign. Eduart was advised by the union members there to think
`
`about it and Todd would call him beck with a final answer. The call never happened
`
`During the original call, Eduart asked Todd and Jason (supervisor of supervisors) as to
`
`what they do when an employee does not log out and Jason admitted to going back in
`
`the system and changing ft. Eduart also asked them about drivers’ hours as to what
`
`happens when they run out of hours and Todd said that they should be allowed to be
`
`reset but did not have an answer when Eduart said that they do not let us do that and
`
`our records would show Eduart and others have been forced in so many times on their
`
`re-set days
`
`14
`
`Oefendants knew or should have known that their conduct in subjecting Eduart to
`
`the aforesaid involved an unreasonable risk of causing severe emotional distress in/to
`
`him and that such distress might result in iliness or bodily harm info him.
`
`15. Defendantsaforesand conduct and words proximately caused Eduart to suffer
`
`huge economic and non-economic damages for which he is entitled full and fair
`
`compensation as well as punitive damages and aitorney’s fees and costs permitted by
`
`law,
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`COUNTIV,NEGLIGENCE8YDEFENDANTSVISAVISPLAINTIFF.JERINATONE
`
`
`
`
`
`Counts I-lll are incorporated here
`
`1 Avail time relevant hereto, Eduart was Jerina’s husband
`
`2 Asa result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants, Jerina suffered
`
`non-economic damages as follows:
`
`&. Shock
`
`b Fright.
`
`c. Emotional distress.
`
`G. Loss of consortium.
`
`e. Loss of the enjoyment of life,
`
`3. AS a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants, Jerina suffered
`
`present and future economic damages caused proximately therefrom
`
`WHEREFORE.The plaintiffs, respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
`
`i. Award to them, respectively, the actual damages suffered by them,
`
`respectively, as proved at trial;
`
`2. Award to Eduart punitive damages and the cosis of this action:
`
`3. Grant Such other relief as the Court deems just, proper or equitable
`
`10
`
`

`

`under the circ*mstances.
`
`THE PLAINTIFFS,
`Mele 3+ pe
`BY:
`/s/ 071655
`EDDI Z. ZYKO, ESQUIRE
`120 FENN ROAD
`MIDDLEBURY, CT 06762
`CT. JURIS NO: 071655
`FEDERAL BAR NO. Ci-14172
`TEL NO: 203-758-8119
`FAX NO: 203-598-7994
`E-MAIL: eddizyko@me.com
`
`11
`
`

`

`* SUPERIOR Cony
`' 4.D. OF WATEREURY
`‘ AT WATERRD RY
`
`' MARCH 14 2993
`
`COCACOLABOTTLINGCOMPANY
`
`exclusive of interest and costs.
`Cable ue Ye~
`BY /s/ 071655
`EOD! Z. ZrO, ESQUIRE
`120 FENN ROAD
`MIDDLEBURY, CT 06762
`CT. JURIS NO: 071655
`FEDERAL BAR No. CT-14172
`TEL NO: 203-758-8119
`FAX NO. 203-598-7694
`E-MAIL: eddizyko@me.com
`
`12
`
`