Fired for losing his nerve. A cool million oughta help

[CPOPE]

PG&E worker wins $1 million in Santa Cruz wrongful termination lawsuit
By Stephen Baxter, Santa Cruz Sentinel,

Posted: 12/16/2013 10:02:18 AM PST | Updated: about 9 hours ago

SANTA CRUZ -- A 44-year-old former PG&E power line worker was awarded more than $1 million in a recent civil lawsuit after he made safety complaints and was fired in 2012.

Matthew Niswonger, of Live Oak, worked for PG&E for about eight years. His crew was asked to replace a broken electrical pole on Hihn Road in Ben Lomond in July 2011.

His supervisor said the repair could be done without shutting down power, so Niswonger and two others did it -- but it was harrowing work. A cross arm broke as they were working, and live, high-voltage wires came "within inches" of touching each other, Niswonger said.

"If those two wires would have touched, there would have been an explosion," he said.

Luckily, they completed the job and no one was hurt.

Afterward, they found out that at least one other PG&E crew turned down the job because it appeared dangerous with live wires.

About a month later, another crew did more work on the line -- but they got clearance from supervisors to have the power line shut off for about 100 customers on Hihn Road during the job.

"In the company's defense, they're just trying to give good customer service. They're trying to keep people's power on," Niswonger said. "It's a balance of what jobs need to be done 'hot' and what jobs need to be done de-energized. That's a judgment call."

Niswonger made a safety complaint and essentially felt unsafe at work after that, said his San Francisco-based attorney, Jonathan Siegel.

Niswonger suffered from panic attacks, anxiety and depression. He was granted a monthlong medical absence, but his supervisor asked him to show up to work to talk about the absence, according to the original legal complaint. Niswonger called to say he would not return to work, and he and his supervisor exchanged voicemails about it that week.

Niswonger's supervisor fired him in a voicemail in September 2011.

Niswonger filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in June 2012, and his attorney said it took that long to file because Niswonger was searching for an attorney.

He essentially sued for lost wages, lost benefits and emotional distress. Santa Cruz County Superior Judge John Gallagher heard the case in a jury trial from Nov. 4 to 27. Niswonger's attorney essentially had to prove that he made a safety complaint in good faith, and that a substantial part of his termination was part of that safety complaint.

The jury awarded Niswonger $595,615 for lost wages and benefits and $500,000 for emotional distress. PG&E also was ordered to pay for Niswonger's legal fees.

Monica Tell, a spokeswoman for PG&E, said Friday that the utility's lawyers planned to continue the case.

"The case is not over," Tell said. "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and plan to file a number of post-trial motions. Until then it is not appropriate to comment further."

Niswonger, a father of three, has since found a new job in the same field. He thanked his wife and children for standing by him during the lawsuit.

Niswonger added that safety is a daily discussion at PG&E, and line workers in Santa Cruz County do safe and efficient work.

"If there is an issue at PG&E, it's at a management level," he said.

[Old Line Dog]

PG&E worker wins $1 million in Santa Cruz wrongful termination lawsuit
By Stephen Baxter, Santa Cruz Sentinel,

Posted: 12/16/2013 10:02:18 AM PST | Updated: about 9 hours ago

SANTA CRUZ -- A 44-year-old former PG&E power line worker was awarded more than $1 million in a recent civil lawsuit after he made safety complaints and was fired in 2012.

Matthew Niswonger, of Live Oak, worked for PG&E for about eight years. His crew was asked to replace a broken electrical pole on Hihn Road in Ben Lomond in July 2011.

His supervisor said the repair could be done without shutting down power, so Niswonger and two others did it -- but it was harrowing work. A cross arm broke as they were working, and live, high-voltage wires came "within inches" of touching each other, Niswonger said.

"If those two wires would have touched, there would have been an explosion," he said.

Luckily, they completed the job and no one was hurt.

Afterward, they found out that at least one other PG&E crew turned down the job because it appeared dangerous with live wires.

About a month later, another crew did more work on the line -- but they got clearance from supervisors to have the power line shut off for about 100 customers on Hihn Road during the job.

"In the company's defense, they're just trying to give good customer service. They're trying to keep people's power on," Niswonger said. "It's a balance of what jobs need to be done 'hot' and what jobs need to be done de-energized. That's a judgment call."

Niswonger made a safety complaint and essentially felt unsafe at work after that, said his San Francisco-based attorney, Jonathan Siegel.

Niswonger suffered from panic attacks, anxiety and depression. He was granted a monthlong medical absence, but his supervisor asked him to show up to work to talk about the absence, according to the original legal complaint. Niswonger called to say he would not return to work, and he and his supervisor exchanged voicemails about it that week.

Niswonger's supervisor fired him in a voicemail in September 2011.

Niswonger filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in June 2012, and his attorney said it took that long to file because Niswonger was searching for an attorney.

He essentially sued for lost wages, lost benefits and emotional distress. Santa Cruz County Superior Judge John Gallagher heard the case in a jury trial from Nov. 4 to 27. Niswonger's attorney essentially had to prove that he made a safety complaint in good faith, and that a substantial part of his termination was part of that safety complaint.

The jury awarded Niswonger $595,615 for lost wages and benefits and $500,000 for emotional distress. PG&E also was ordered to pay for Niswonger's legal fees.

Monica Tell, a spokeswoman for PG&E, said Friday that the utility's lawyers planned to continue the case.

"The case is not over," Tell said. "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and plan to file a number of post-trial motions. Until then it is not appropriate to comment further."

Niswonger, a father of three, has since found a new job in the same field. He thanked his wife and children for standing by him during the lawsuit.

Niswonger added that safety is a daily discussion at PG&E, and line workers in Santa Cruz County do safe and efficient work.

"If there is an issue at PG&E, it's at a management level," he said.

Just a "Personal Opinion".
CRAP like this is what is wrong with our country.

You agree with that guy Mr. Pope? "Where have all the LINEMEN gone?"

[Rob]

For sure... It would make more sense had he refused to do the job and was terminated. Once he completed the job and no one got hurt seems a bit late to dwell on it. Almost makes me wonder if the guys he worked with (other crews) were the ones giving him a hard time for doing it after the other crew turned it day. Sounds like he's still doing Linework but for a different company.

Like many stories it all depends on who tells it....

[reppy007]

Sounds like he hired a lawyer in advance......and the lawyer coached him all the way through.........apparently with success.

[Trouble1]

At least the company got tagged for not listening to the workers. A supervisor does not have the final say on whether something is safe or not unless he's doing the work. The fact that he probably new it was already refused once before and then didn't give the next crew that information is what probably set the whole thing off after the crew found out that info. I've had it happen plenty of times where I refused something and then it was magically done a couple days later and I'm sure I've been on the other end.

Whether the guy deserved to sue and win shouldn't be the discussion that comes from the story.

[reppy007]

There was one time I sorta refused,there happened to be a bad transformer on a closed delta-bank,they wanted to change it out and while on the pole in hooks you could maneuver to the right and to the left,well the pole itself was twisting really bad...pretty much rotten.....this bank fed several homes ,maybe 5 or six,but one was actually 3-phase,so what do you do? Anybody should know that.....I think!

[Lineman North Florida]

There was one time I sorta refused,there happened to be a bad transformer on a closed delta-bank,they wanted to change it out and while on the pole in hooks you could maneuver to the right and to the left,well the pole itself was twisting really bad...pretty much rotten.....this bank fed several homes ,maybe 5 or six,but one was actually 3-phase,so what do you do? Anybody should know that.....I think!

Make it an open delta................

[reppy007]

Make it an open delta................

1000% correct!

[NJ glove]

Without knowing all the facts I really can't say much about the employee refusing to do the work. I would say is that if the pole is not down on the ground and wire is up then it should be done energized. Not many can do what we do and I would never ask someone to do something that can't be done. What I do see is some lineman are kittens and have slipped through the cracks. Be a man , Be Safe, and make it happen. Big difference between being unsafe and hazardous. Just my opinion.

[Orgnizdlbr]

On the face of it, there's something awfully wrong with the info written in the article. $595.000 for lost wages when he was let go September 2011. The case is heard November 2013, a little over 2 years, lost wages are only what you would have earned in a court of law, so the article is telling me he was making almost $300.000 a year...... I don't think so!!!

He doesn't file a wrongful termination law suit until June, 2012. PG$E is a union shop with a grievance and arbitration provision in the CBA. So did he file a grievance for unjust discipline? I would certainly think so, and if he didn't, I would be certain the Local Union filed one on his behalf. So, unless the grievance was withdraw by either him or the local, which BTW, would be highly unlikely if all of the facts in the article are accurate, what was the outcome of that process????

Something ain't right here...... The article doesn't make any sense to me...... Oh, but it is California...... I guess anything is possible!!