It reminds me of the court case that was controversial when Gorsuch was confirmed involving a trucker - "TransAm Trucking v. Dept. of Labour" in particular. It's another case where company property is valued over individuals lives - the case itself hinged on the fact that the employee was free to leave the site on foot but that it was illegal for him to use the tractor half of the truck owned by the employer to reach safety without authorization from the employer. Essentially the ruling of that case leads to the learned lesson that all truck drivers should strap private motorcycles to the sides of their trucks - doing otherwise is irresponsible.

I must be reading it backwards, but wasn't the order eventually upheld that the employee be reinstated? Gorsuch dissented, but he wasn't the one making the ruling. At least thats what the article I just read on it said, but I could be wrong -- it's early in the morning and I only just had my coffee!

> TransAm appealed, but in a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s reinstatement order (TransAm Trucking v. Department of Labor, 2016). Judge Neil Gorsuch dissented.

https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/477996

in case anyone else wants to know the details of this case:

https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/477996

Am I misunderstanding something? The courts ruled in the truckers favor. Besides, I'm not sure a motorcycle would have saved him from the extreme cold.