CJ-2020-1026 - Jesse Joslin v. Froilan Deleon Trucking, Inc.

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a trucking company allegedly fired a driver while he was still recovering from a work-related injury, after he dared to do the unthinkable—file a workers’ comp claim. Not only that, but for months prior, they’d been treating their drivers like glorified freelancers, making them work 80-hour weeks without overtime, while calling them “independent contractors” to dodge basic labor laws. This isn’t just a wage theft case—it’s a full-on workplace whodunit, except the culprit left receipts, pay stubs, and a paper trail so loud you could hear it from the interstate.

Meet Jesse Joslin, Oklahoma trucker, man of the open road, hauler of rock, sand, and asphalt—the gritty backbone of road construction. He wasn’t looking for drama when he signed on with Froilan Deleon Trucking, Inc. in March 2019. He just needed a job, a paycheck, and a way to keep his rig rolling. The company, based in Oklahoma County, presented itself as a modest but steady gig: intrastate hauling, nothing too flashy. But from the jump, something felt off. They handed him a truck, set his hours, dictated how the job was done, and even called him an employee while he was on the clock. Yet on paper? Nope. Independent contractor. A label that, legally speaking, is about as accurate as calling a goldfish a shark.

Now, if you’re scratching your head wondering why this matters—welcome to the sneaky world of worker misclassification. Companies sometimes slap the “independent contractor” tag on workers they treat like employees because it saves them a lot of money. No overtime. No unemployment insurance. No workers’ comp. No payroll taxes. It’s like hiring a full-time chef but telling them, “You’re not on the payroll—you’re just really passionate about omelets.” And Froilan Deleon Trucking allegedly took this scam to the extreme. Joslin claims he was regularly working over 80 hours a week—that’s two full workweeks crammed into one, with no overtime pay. In fact, the company didn’t even track hours. No timecards. No payroll records. Just “drive until you drop” energy, minus the compensation. And somehow, despite all those hours, Joslin was earning less than minimum wage. That’s not just unfair—it’s illegal. Like, federal crime illegal.

But here’s where the plot thickens. On November 4, 2019, Joslin got hurt on the job. Not a fender bender. A legit work injury that left him in Temporary Total Disability (TTD)—meaning doctors said he couldn’t work at all. So he did what any injured worker should do: he filed a workers’ comp claim. And not just filed it—he got a lawyer. Because when your back’s out and your paycheck stops, you don’t mess around. He initiated proceedings with the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission on November 27. Smart move. Legal move. Protected move.

And then—bam—he gets fired. January 3, 2020. No warning. No explanation. Just done. Poof. Out of a job. While still medically cleared as TTD. The company didn’t even bother with a fake excuse like “budget cuts” or “performance issues.” They ghosted him. Which, in legal terms, is a giant red flag. In human terms? Cold. So cold.

Joslin’s lawsuit argues this wasn’t a coincidence. It was retaliation. Plain and simple. He was punished for daring to seek medical benefits after getting hurt doing his job. And under Oklahoma law, that’s not just a slap on the wrist offense—it’s a violation of public policy. The Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA) exists to protect workers like Joslin, not just from injury, but from getting screwed after they’re injured. It explicitly bans firing someone for filing a claim, hiring a lawyer, or being out on TTD. And yet, here we are.

On top of that, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)—the federal law that brought us the 40-hour workweek and overtime pay—says you can’t just decide someone isn’t an employee if they function like one. Control the hours? Check. Provide the tools? Check. Set the rules? Check. Call them an employee on the daily? Also check. That’s an employee, no matter what the W-9 says. By misclassifying Joslin and others, Froilan Deleon Trucking allegedly dodged overtime, minimum wage, and tax obligations. And the FLSA doesn’t play: if you break these rules, you owe back pay and liquidated damages—basically, double what you should’ve paid in the first place.

So what does Joslin want? $10,000 in actual damages—plus more for emotional distress, lost wages, attorney fees, and whatever else the court feels like tossing in. Now, $10,000 might sound modest for a lawsuit, especially one involving injury and wage theft. But let’s put it in context: this isn’t about getting rich. It’s about being made whole. It’s about covering lost income, medical gaps, and the sheer indignity of being tossed aside like a worn-out tire. And when you factor in attorney fees and potential liquidated damages under the FLSA, that number could grow. But Joslin isn’t asking for a mansion. He’s asking for what he earned and what the law says he’s owed.

Here’s the thing we can’t stop thinking about: the sheer audacity of firing someone while they’re on workers’ comp. It’s like robbing a bank, then firing the security guard for calling the police. The gall! And the misclassification scheme? That’s not some gray-area loophole—it’s a well-worn playbook for exploiting blue-collar workers who just want to do their jobs and go home. Joslin wasn’t asking for stock options or a corner office. He wanted fair pay and basic dignity. And when he got hurt? He wanted medical care, not a pink slip.

We’re not rooting for anyone to get rich off this. But we are rooting for accountability. For the little guy who showed up every day, rain or shine, hauling heavy loads for a company that treated him like disposable labor. For every trucker, delivery driver, or gig worker who’s been told, “You’re not an employee—you’re a partner,” while being micromanaged like clockwork. This case isn’t just about Jesse Joslin. It’s about drawing a line in the gravel. And if the court rules in his favor, it won’t just be justice for one man—it’ll be a warning shot to every employer who thinks they can play fast and loose with the rules. You can’t treat someone like an employee, work them like a mule, and then dump them like trash the second they get hurt. Not in Oklahoma. Not anywhere.

Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to update our LinkedIn: “Seeking passionate, self-employed, non-exempt, totally disposable individuals for 80-hour weeks. Benefits? What’s that?” Wait—no. Scratch that. Some things are just wrong, no matter how you classify them.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

D. Colby Addison, Leah M. Roper

The Center for Employment Law

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Jesse Joslin individual
Rep: D. Colby Addison, OBA #32718, Leah M. Roper, OBA # 32107

Defendants

Froilan Deleon Trucking, Inc. business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Violations of the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act
2	Violations of the FLSA

Petition Text

1,076 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JESSE JOSLIN, Plaintiff, v. FROILAN DELEON TRUCKING, INC., Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, and for his cause of action herein alleges and states as follows: 1. Plaintiff is Jesse Joslin, an adult resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant is Friolan Deleon Trucking, Incorporated, a domestic for-profit business corporation. CLAIMS AND VENUE 3. Plaintiff's causes of action are for Defendant's violations of the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act ("AWCA") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). 4. All of the acts described herein occurred in the State of Oklahoma, and Defendant can be served in Oklahoma County. Wherefore, venue is proper in this Court. STATEMENT OF FACTS 5. Defendant is an employer, as defined by the AWCA and FLSA. 6. Defendant has annual gross volume of sales made or business done that is not less than $500,000. 7. Defendant engages in intrastate transportation of rock, asphalt, and sand. 8. Defendant is registered as an “Intrastate Only” hauling business. 9. Defendant employed Plaintiff as a Driver from approximately March 10, 2019, to January 3, 2020. 10. Plaintiff’s job responsibilities as a Driver were to transport rock, asphalt, and sand within the State of Oklahoma. 11. During Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant controlled the means and manner of Plaintiff’s work, including but not limited to: a. Setting Plaintiff’s work hours; b. Providing Plaintiff’s equipment to perform work; c. Providing policies and/or standards for work performance to which Plaintiff was to abide; and d. Referring to Plaintiff as an employee while he was working. 12. Despite exercising such control over Plaintiff, Defendant classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. Such classification was improper under the law, and deprived Plaintiff of right and benefits owed to employees in Oklahoma. 13. Defendant frequently requires its Drivers, including Plaintiff, to work in excess of eighty (80) hours per week. 14. Defendant classifies its Drivers, including Plaintiff, as exempt from overtime pay when those employees work in excess of forty hours per workweek. 15. Despite requiring such hours of work, Defendant does not track its employees’ hours worked each workweek, the employees’ regular hourly pay rate, the basis on which wages are paid, the total daily or weekly straight-time earnings, and the total overtime earnings for each workweek. 16. Defendant’s Drivers, including Plaintiff, regularly earn less than minimum wage based on their weekly earnings and hours worked per workweek. 17. Defendant intentionally or recklessly misclassifies its Drivers, including Plaintiff, as exempt from overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, which deprives those employees of proper wages based on their hours worked. 18. Defendant’s Drivers, including Plaintiff, are engaged in the transportation of rock, asphalt, and sand that originates in the State of Oklahoma and does not cross state lines. 19. Defendant does not require its Drivers, including Plaintiff, to drive across state lines. 20. On or about November 4, 2019, Plaintiff suffered an on-the-job injury. 21. As a result of the on-the-job injury, Plaintiff was classified as TTD (Temporary Total Disability). 22. On or about November 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a workers compensation claim in the workers compensation commission with the assistance of an attorney. 23. While Plaintiff was classified as TTD, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on or about January 3, 2020. 24. No reason was given to Plaintiff for his termination. 25. Plaintiff's termination was motivated in whole or in part by his worker's compensation claim, his TTD status, or his consultation with counsel in pursuit of worker's compensation claims. 26. As a direct result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to incur wage loss (including back, present, and front pay) and emotional distress/dignitary harm damages. COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF 85A O.S. § 7(A)-(H) Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above and further pleads as follows: 27. An employer may not retaliate against an employee when the employee has in good faith filed a claim under the AWCA. 28. An employer may not retaliate against an employee when the employee has in good faith retained a lawyer for representation regarding a claim under the AWCA. 29. An employer may not retaliate against an employee when the employee has in good faith instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under the AWCA. 30. An employer may not discharge an employee for the purpose of avoiding payment of benefits under the AWCA. 31. An employer may not discharge an employee during a period of total temporary disability for the sole reason of being absent from work under the AWCA. 32. Under the AWCA an employer that retaliates against an employee for any of the reasons set forth above shall be liable for reasonable damages, actual and punitive, along with being required to pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. 33. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment because Plaintiff, in good faith, filed a claim under the AWCA, retained a lawyer for representation regarding a claim under the AWCA, instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under the AWCA, for being absent during a period of TTD, and/or it terminated Plaintiff to avoid payment of benefits to Plaintiff. COUNT II – VIOLATIONS OF FLSA Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above and further pleads as follows: 34. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, including minimum wage rights and overtime rights. 35. As a result of Defendant’s misclassification of Plaintiff as an independent contractor, Plaintiff suffered losses in the form of tax contributions, unemployment insurance, and worker’s compensation insurance benefits. 36. The FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees one and one-half times the regular rate of pay at which they are employed for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek. 37. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at the statutorily prescribed rate of one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty per workweek. 38. Under this count, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of liquidated damages. 39. Defendant is liable under the FLSA for unpaid employer contributions, overtime, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, and litigation costs. PRAYER The actual damages under Plaintiff’s claims exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and assess an award of reasonable damages, actual, punitive, and liquidated together with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as this Court may deem equitable and appropriate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 20, 2020. D. Colby Addison, OBA #32718 Leah M. Roper, OBA # 32107 THE CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT LAW 1133 N. Portland Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73107 Telephone: 405.252.1180 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED