Judge Gorsuch: No friend to American workers

Judge Gorsuch: No friend to American workers

Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly ruled against employees and the federal agencies responsible for protecting workers. He has consistently sided with employers and corporate interests over the rights of their employees.

Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with companies that put the lives and safety of their employees at risk.

Judge Gorsuch sided with a company that fired one of its truck drivers because he had sought help after waiting for hours in freezing temperatures with a broken trailer.

* In TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit upheld a fine imposed on a truck company for illegally firing a driver. The driver had been stranded in the freezing cold for several hours after his trailer's brakes froze and the heat in the truck stopped working. The majority wrote that it was so cold that the driver's "torso was numb and he could not feel his feet." TransAm told the driver he could either wait for a repairman or drive with the trailer to find help. He could not move the trailer with the frozen brakes so he detached it and drove the cab to get help. TransAm fired him days later for leaving the trailer. A federal agency fined the company. The majority affirmed the fine, but Judge Gorsuch dissented. Applying a strict textualist approach to the statute, he argued that the employer should have been able to fire the driver.

Judge Gorsuch sided with a company after its failure to train a worker resulted in his death on the job.

* In Compass Environmental, Inc. v. OSHRC, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit voted upheld the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's $5,500 fine against Compass. The commission found that the company's failure to properly train the worker on the dangers of a power line running overhead that had contributed to the worker's death. Notably, other employees had received the relevant training from the company. The majority upheld the fine, but Judge Gorsuch dissented, finding that it was not clear whether "reasonably prudent" employers would have done more.

Judge Gorsuch sided with an oil-rigging company that had been cited for worker safety violations

* In Longhorn Service Company v. Perez, Judge Gorsuch voted to overturn a $3,000 worker safety fine that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration imposed on an oil rigging company for its failure to cover or guard a two-foot-wide opening in an oil rig floor. One judge appointed by President George W. Bush dissented, writing that Gorsuch and the other judge misconstrued the relevant regulations and had not shown proper deference to the administrative law judge that originally heard evidence in the case.

Judge Gorsuch has consistently voted to limit

the rights and benefits afforded to working men and women.

Judge Gorsuch voted to allow a for-profit corporation to deny its female employees' birth control coverage based on the corporation's claim that it had a religious objection to contraception.

* In Hobby Lobby, Judge Gorsuch joined the Tenth Circuit majority in deciding that large, for-profit corporations have religious beliefs that allow them to not comply with laws they believe violate those beliefs--in this case, the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraceptive mandate for women employees.

* Judge Gorsuch joined the decision, but went further in a separate concurrence, arguing that owners' religious beliefs had also been violated by the requirement that the company provide insurance coverage for birth control. Judge Gorsuch opened his opinion, writing: "All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether, and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others." The Supreme Court did not address Judge Gorsuch's separate argument in its controversial 5-4 decision that upheld the Tenth Circuit's ruling.

Judge Gorsuch voted to deny health insurance coverage to a woman who needed a second liver transplant after the first transplanted liver she received failed just two weeks after she received it.

* In Hollingshead v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, a woman's insurance policy did not cover transplants of "more than one organ of the same type." Given that the woman's first liver failed after only 17 days, a doctor argued that getting her a second, successful liver was really part of the original transplant process. Judge Gorsuch disagreed and joined a Tenth Circuit opinion that allowed the health insurance company to deny coverage to the woman for the second transplant.

Judge Gorsuch ruled against workers whose employer had improperly informed them that their retirement benefits would be reduced.

* In Jensen v. Solvay Chemicals, a chemical company reduced its employees' retirement benefits but failed to properly inform the employees. Judge Gorsuch authored the panel's opinion arguing that the company's failure to properly notify did not entitle the employees to lost benefits because the employer had not acted "egregiously." Siding with the chemical company, Judge Gorsuch agreed that the employer had "done its best to comply with" the law.

Judge Gorsuch voted against back pay for health care workers whose employer had reduced their hours in violation of their collective bargaining agreement.

* In NLRB v. Community Health Services, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit (including a Republican-appointed judge) agreed with the National Labor Relations Board that a hospital was required to give back pay to its workers after improperly reducing hours in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. The hospital argued that income its workers earned from jobs they took because of their hours has been reduced should be deducted from any back pay award. The NLRB and the Tenth Circuit majority disagreed but Judge Gorsuch dissented. He sided with the hospital and criticized the NLRB for acting out of "frustration" that it could not "pursue more tantalizing goals like punishing employers or maximizing employment."

Judge Gorsuch has routinely ruled against employees in employment discrimination cases

Judge Gorsuch ruled against a woman who was fired after complaining that one of her supervisors at work routinely made lewd and inappropriate statements to her.

* In Pinkerton v. Colorado Department of Transportation, a woman working for the Colorado Department of Transportation was subject to repeated sexually inappropriate comments made by her supervisor, including questions about her breast size and her "sexual urges." After complaining about her supervisor's conduct, she was fired. Judge Gorsuch joined a majority opinion dismissing her claim for discrimination and retaliation. Another Tenth Circuit judge who was appointed by President Reagan dissented, arguing that the case should have been left for a jury to decide.

Judge Gorsuch ruled against a woman who was fired from her job as a university professor while she was battling cancer.

* In Hwang v. Kansas State University, Judge Gorsuch authored a panel opinion holding that a public university was not liable for effectively firing an assistant professor by refusing to provide more than six months of sick leave or allow her to work from home after she had been diagnosed with cancer. Judge Gorsuch acknowledged that the problem she faced was "in no way of her own making," but concluded it was nevertheless "a problem other forms of social security aim to address." The professor passed away a few years after Judge Gorsuch's decision.

Judge Gorsuch voted against a woman UPS driver who claimed that her supervisors had treated her more harshly than her male colleagues.

* In Strickland v. United Parcel Service, Inc. a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of allowing a woman UPS driver to pursue her claim for gender discrimination. She claimed that she was subject to increased and discriminatory scrutiny of her job performance after a two week leave-of-absence. The majority noted that other employees testified that the woman had been treated differently than her male co-workers upon returning to work, specifically noting a similarly situated male employee who had worse sales numbers but who had not been subjected to the same treatment... Despite this testimony, Judge Gorsuch argued that the employee's gender discrimination claim should not go to a jury.