Truck News


A truck driver’s best friend?

Woman fired for bringing her service dog along for the ride

WINNIPEG, Man. — There’s a fine line between safety and making reasonable accommodations for employees; a lesson Lucinda Brummitt experienced first-hand when she was let go by a Manitoba trucking company for allowing her service dog to travel with her in-cab while on the road.

Landing a driver position in September 2015, Brummitt was fired shortly after by Jade Transport for having her service dog, Mr. Big, ride with her in the truck.

Brummitt said the company was aware she had a service dog, and the dog had even accompanied her on several trips with an owner-operator the Winnipeg-based company had used at the time.

“We made sure that Jade Transport knew we had my service dog with us in the vehicle, as we were crossing borders and going to chemical plants,” Brummitt said. “We filed a waiver with Jade for our travel. We took Mr. Big on lots of trips totaling over three months of on the road time with no issue.”

However, Brummitt was not originally hired to be a driver for Jade, but rather as a dispatcher. Brummitt said that during the interview process, the fact that she had a service dog was part of the discussion, and that having a service dog in the office ‘would have been a non-issue.’

Brummitt, who is a US army veteran, moved to Canada when she met her husband in North Dakota, who is also a truck driver and a Manitoba native.

“When I got in the country to fill out the paperwork for my visa and permanent residence that they had contracted to pay, they changed the plan to me driving a truck in order to get to work faster,” Brummitt said.

Brummitt claims she was moved into a driver position without her prior knowledge, but in an effort to make the transition into Canada, she accepted with the hopes that she would be transitioned back to the dispatcher position after a six-month review.

During orientation, Brummitt said her service dog tagged along, but once assigned a truck, she was asked to leave Mr. Big at home while on the road and was told of the ‘no dog’ policy the company has had in place for over 25 years.

Brummitt said she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from her time serving in the Army, and the service dogs she has had, including Mr. Big and another named Cookie, help her stay healthy by getting out of the truck for exercise, keep her company while on the road, warn her when she is overtired and even nudge her when they knew she was dealing with stress.

“They have both been highly attuned to the people, places and surroundings, allowing me to relax and not be so hypervigilant, which is a great help,” Brummitt explained. “They both have been my best friends in life.”

On her first day of work, Brummitt said she was told to drive a different truck than the one she was told previously – the same owner-operator’s truck she had accompanied when first starting – which she claims a safety officer and immigration attorney warned her would violate Canada’s Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) conditions, which is conducted before a Canadian employer can hire a temporary foreign worker.

Brummitt said she was “forced” to drive the owner-operator’s truck, who was subsequently told to drive a company truck because they did not want the service dog in one of their own vehicles.

Brummitt claims that the company has also retained her wages, something she says is wrong because according to the LMIA, she was hired to work for Jade Transport, not the owner-operator.

Brummitt said she has had conversations with the Labour Board officer who is reviewing her case.

Asked to comment, Carmen Devereaux, communications advisor with the communications and outreach branch of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, did not address the allegations directly.

“Anyone who is eligible to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and who feels that they have been discriminated against is encouraged to file a complaint,” Devereaux said. “This includes foreign workers with valid status.”

Anyone who feels they have been treated unfairly should first determine if the Human Rights Commission can accept their complaint. If it is, the complaint will be investigated by the commission by an investigation officer who may speak with both parties, interview witnesses, review supporting documents and determine whether there is evidence to support the allegations in the complaint.

Devereaux underscored that the parties involved could decide to engage in mediation, which is voluntary and confidential.

“It gives each side the opportunity to explain their understanding of the story, and then attempts to resolve the concerns that led to the complaint,” she said. “If the mediation works, then both sides must sign a settlement agreement.”

Once the investigation is complete, commission members review the report to determine if the complaint should be dismissed, sent to conciliation, or referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a decision.

As for whether an employer is obligated to accommodate a disability, Devereaux said they must to the point of undue hardship, but added that there is no standard formula or precise legal definition of undue hardship.

“Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, an employer can only claim undue hardship when adjustments to a policy, practice, by‐law or physical space would cost too much or create health or safety risks,” Devereaux said. “Each situation should be viewed as unique and assessed individually. The point of undue hardship varies for each employer and for each accommodation situation.”

A claim of undue hardship must be supported with facts, with the employer providing evidence as to the nature and extent of the hardship, Devereaux explained.

“They should also be able to show that all reasonable means of accommodation have been exhausted,” she said.

When safety is raised as the basis for undue hardship, Devereaux said employers must consider whose safety is at risk and the magnitude of the risk, and whether that employee can be moved to a non-safety sensitive position.

“Once undue hardship is demonstrated,” Devereaux said, “the employer is no longer required to accommodate the employee.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission does not comment on specific cases which are under review. Brummitt filed her case in January 2016, and it is currently being reviewed by the commission.

Truck West reached out to Jade Transport, which did not respond as of press time.

Print this page

11 Comments » for A truck driver’s best friend?
  1. C. Clark says:

    Many trucking companies today are realizing that in order to attract drivers, they must offer enticements. One of those perks is being able to take their dog or pet along for the ride. One’s Best Friend provides companionship and protection. I’m referring to a family pet, let alone a service dog. A service dog should be treated with the utmost respect, as their presence is invaluable to a person who is suffering from PTSD. Shame on Jade Transport. This incident is another blot on the trucking landscape, an industry in desperate need of professional drivers.

  2. William McKechnie says:

    I have a Jack Russell Terrier that I have taken on the road numerous times. The company was aware and the only stipulation was that I clean, or pay to have cleaned, the truck when I left their employment, which I did when I retired. Some companies just don’t get it. It’s hard enough to hire good drivers without throwing stupid rules in the way.

  3. Allen Roulston says:

    I hope it is abundantly clear to everyone reading this article, the treatment of Lucinda Brummitt is obviously wrong. I find it very sad to read about something like this in the year 2017. Worse yet there are plenty of similar stories which remain hidden. As most of us would freely admit, the trucking workplace is not generally a nurturing environment. The driver is constantly taking up the slack and absorbing the numerous inherent challenges associated with the job. Additionally, the professional driver will also suffer the end result of any human error ( example: dispatched to pick up a load which is not ready ) which takes place in the chain of events leading to their assigned work. To have the employer of a professional driver treat them in this manner is disgusting. I fervently hope the employer is penalized to the full extent of the law.

  4. Dutch van Noggeren says:

    Obviously Jade Transport has evaluated whether or not to lose a driver over an animal in the truck issue. I believe that is their choice. I’ve never had a pet in my truck, and although I love animals I choose not to have one in my truck. If you want to slur or penalize Jade Transport because of their position on this, I think that is wrong. We are losing so many choices (freedoms) in this country because some want to force their views others. If you want your dog with you, just find a company that allows pets – plain and simple. By the way, if I were looking for a truck driving job and a company offered me a truck that had evidence of being driven by a smoker or one who had a pet in the truck, I would ask for another truck or go to another company. It’s all about choices.

    • Allen Roulston says:

      There is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT to accommodate an employee with a disability. An illness (PTSD) qualifies as a disability. Jade Transport has/had a legal obligation to accommodate the disability of their employee.

  5. I agree Dutch it’s choice, as simple as that. …the driver can and should go elsewhere. …Searcy Trucking in Winnipeg is hiring, they hired my girlfriend, she does short haul , dump truck , belly dump and sand truck. …also live load box trailer or flat bed…..

  6. robert says:

    I am fully for Jade transport you want to drive for them well if there is a no pet allowed in truck if it suit you it is ok or if you want your pet with you stay home and play with him.
    We all are driving and all are in potential danger while sleeping in rest area but this is the risk of the trade.

  7. Tom Nitsch says:

    I guess readers don’t read. She didn’t ask for a driving job, she was hired as a dispatcher then pushed into a truck. After several months of working WITH the dog in the truck they decide they don’t want t it? That’s on Jade.

    • Dutch van Noggeren says:

      Maybe you should re-read. When she drove, it was not in a company truck. She drove an owner-operators truck and Jade was fine with that. All she had to do was to keep her dog out of the company trucks.

  8. Jazz Wynter says:

    Remember she served her Country to allow you to have that choice .Educate yourself for those of you who don’t know that PTSD is a serious disability . She is not staying at home living off your taxes. Maybe you should spend sometime with some of the veterans who contributed to you freedom of choice.

  9. Jazz Wynter says:

    Remember she served her Country to allow you to have that choice .Educate yourself for those of you who don’t know that PTSD is a serious disability . She is not staying at home living off your taxes. Maybe you should spend sometime with some of the veterans who contributed to you freedom of choice

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *