Court Nixes Workers’ Compensation for ‘Light Beer’ Drinking UPS Driver

A United Parcel Service (UPS) driver who was intoxicated when he crashed his semi-trailer delivery truck has been denied workers’ compensation benefits.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Kathleen Vavala last week reversed a state Industrial Accident Board (IAB) ruling that Timothy Willis was entitled to benefits. The judge found that the IAB abused its discretion and ignored both evidence and the law when it granted benefits to Willis.

The judge hammered the IAB for disregarding “overwhelming” evidence presented by UPS and the sworn testimony of law enforcement officers that the UPS driver was intoxicated. The court also slammed the IAB for speculating that “light beers” lessened the concern and for not allowing UPS to cross-examine the driver about his drinking.

“To affirm the board’s decision would set a dangerous precedent that employees can get away with driving impaired on the job — as long as it’s a light beer—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” Judge Vavala wrote in denying the worker his benefits.

The judge found that intoxication on the job violates not only UPS policy but also Delaware law and thus the driver was not acting within the course and scope of his employment as the IAB had concluded.

The Crash

At 4:00 a.m. the morning on June 8, 2021, Willis crashed his UPS truck into a guardrail on a Maryland road. Willis was ending his overnight shift of deliveries and dropping off his trailer before returning to Delaware. Wills admitted that he often celebrated the end of his route with some beers and that he drank three Miller Lite beers that morning.

Baltimore police responding to the crash scene said they saw Willis throwing beer cans from the cab into the woods when they arrived. They also said his speech was slurred, he was sweating profusely, and he smelled of alcohol. Willis told them he did not know what had happened and that his doctor was screening him for diabetes. The road conditions and weather were clear that morning, police noted. Willis later claimed that he swerved to avoid several deer.

The police arrested him for driving under the influence (DUI). A Maryland judge placed him on probation pending a judgment.

UPS denied Willis’s claim for workers’ compensation, arguing that he was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident and had forfeited his right to compensation by his voluntary intoxication and his reckless indifference to danger. UPS stressed that it has a “zero-tolerance” policy under which consumption of any alcohol is a violation.

At his hearing before the IAB, the board excluded the results from the Breathalyzer tests that were deemed to not have been authenticated. The board also excluded statements by Willis in Maryland court prior to his judgment on the DUI charge and the board did not allow UPS to question Willis on those statements.

IAB Decision

The IAB granted Willis’s workers’ compensation claim in part, finding that the “mere violation” of a company’s safety policy does not place what would otherwise be a workplace accident beyond the scope of employment. It also found that because Willis was not convicted of DUI, UPS had failed to prove that he was in fact intoxicated or that was the proximate cause of the accident.

But the Superior Court judge noted that the IAB had apparently reached its conclusion by ignoring Willis’s admission that he was drinking beer, his throwing beer cans out of the truck, the police testimony that he smelled like alcohol, his physical instability, that he had defecated on himself, that road conditions were dry and safe, and he had refused to cooperate with the DUI field test.

Instead, the IAB speculated over other matters including that he drank light beers with low alcohol content, how long and when he drank were unclear, the cans thrown into the woods may have been old, there was no authenticated proof of his blood alcohol level, bodycam footage did not clearly show that he appeared intoxicated, and the cause of the accident was likely the deer in his headlights as opposed to intoxication.

The IBA also concluded that Willis’s behavior did not rise to the level of “deliberate and reckless indifference” to danger that might disqualify his claim for benefits.

UPS Appeal

In its appeal to the Superior Court, UPS argued that the IBA abused its discretion by failing to conclude that Willis was convicted of DUI under Delaware law, by excluding the Breathalyzer test results, by excluding cross examination of Willis on his statements in a Maryland court, and by finding that Willis was within the course and scope of his employment when he crashed.

Willis disputed each claim by UPS.

Overall Superior Court Judge Vavala sided with UPS in its appeal, finding that the IAB misapplied the law and that its fact findings and conclusions “exceed the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances.” The judge found that the record contained “substantial evidence” that Willis was not acting within the course and scope of his employment and forfeited his right to benefits.

The appeals court agreed that the IAB was within its discretion to exclude the Beathalyzer tests that were not authenticated because Willis had not been convicted of DUI under either Maryland or Delaware law that require there be a sentencing.

IAB Errors

But the appeals judge found that the IAB erroneously blocked potentially probative evidence by not permitting cross-examination of Willis on his statements at the Maryland court proceeding. The Delaware appeals judge criticized the IAB for not recognizing that those statements on his drinking and intoxication were material issues.

The judge found that the IAB erred as a matter of law in concluding that Willis was within the course and scope of his employment. “Voluntary intoxication while working deviates from the ordinary course of employment,” the judge wrote, noting that while one fact alone may not be sufficient proof, here there was a combination of evidence.

The appeals court further noted that violations of an employer’s policy do not necessarily signal a departure from the scope of employment. But here the IAB failed to recognize that Willis’s drinking was both a violation of his employer’s policy and represented a reckless indifference to danger.

“A truck driver cannot reasonably be drinking—nor is he expected to drink— alcohol while operating a semi-trailer weighing thousands of pounds on curving back roads at close to four in the morning. Such conduct not only violates company policy—it is also prohibited by law,” the opinion declares.