Department of Labor v. Copart, Inc., No. 10-5148 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseIntervenor-Appellant Charles Dalton appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment to the Secretary of Labor and order to Defendant Copart, Inc. to pay him back pay with interest as the Secretary requested. Mr. Dalton worked as a salvage hauler for Copart until Copart fired him for refusing to drive his assigned truck. He filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging that he reasonably refused to drive an unsafe truck. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found Mr. Dalton was entitled to receive his job back and receive back pay. Copart offered Mr. Dalton a job at its Detroit facility, but informed him that it would not pay for relocation, and that the plant would cease operations at the end of the same month, so he would be "permanently laid off" after two weeks. Mr. Dalton refused the offer and Copart terminated all of its remaining truck drivers. The Secretary of Labor brought this action to enforce the ALJ's order to Copart to pay Mr. Dalton back pay. All parties agreed Copart owed Mr. Dalton back pay, disputing only the end-date for the award. The district court granted the Secretary's motion thereby resolving the dispute concerning the date on which Mr. Dalton's back pay award ceased to accrue. Mr. Dalton appealed to the Tenth Circuit, disputing whether interest accrued while he waited for Copart to pay him. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court erred in not awarding interest until the judgment for back pay had been satisfied. The Court affirmed the district court's back pay calculation, but reversed it's interest calculation and remanded the case for additional proceedings.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.