Currier's performance declined in 2008. At trial, they testified that Currier
performed more slowly than other drivers, avoided work, and instigated conflicts
with other drivers. They claimed that customers complained about Currier.
According to Sleeth, he and Franssen met with Currier soon after his quarrel with
Howell to "put him on notice, just tell him that we have some major issues with
his overall demeanor, the way he treats the other drivers, the way he performs
his job, his efficiency issues, his unpredictability. He seemed to anger very easily
over very small things." Currier denied that this meeting took place and denied
32 Estevez, 129 Wn. App. at 799 (quoting Vasguez v. State, 94 Wn. App.
976, 985, 974 P.2d 348 (1999)).
33 Wilmot, 118 Wn.2d at 69; Estevez, 129 Wn. App. at 799; Vasguez, 94
Wn. App. at 985, Kahn, 90 Wn. App. at 130-31.
34 Estevez, 129 Wn. App. at 799; Vasguez, 94 Wn. App. at 985; Kahn, 90
Wn. App. at 131; Graves, 76 Wn. App. at 712.
-12-
NO. 70128-2-1/13
that Sleeth and Franssen ever spoke to him about agitating other drivers, his
temper, customer complaints, or slow performance.
NSI produced no documentation of complaints about Currier's
performance. No driver or customer who reportedly complained to Sleeth or
Franssen testified at trial. NSI called one other driver to testify at trial. When
questioned about Currier's work ethic, the driver testified that he believed Currier
was doing "as good a job as me." The trial court noted that even Currier's status
as an independent contractor does not explain the "total absence of any writings
about the numerous problems to which the dispatchers testified."