Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues de novo appeal of taxi medallion revocation for Executive Taxi owner Wesley Hollis
Summary
The Board heard a lengthy, contentious appeal of an SFMTA revocation of a taxi medallion and color‑scheme permit tied to alleged lack of workers' compensation and simultaneous vehicle use. Commissioners directed additional briefing and continued the matter to July 14.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals spent considerable time on May 19 hearing a de novo appeal from Wesley Hollis, owner of Executive Taxi, of the SFMTA’s decision to revoke his medallion and color‑scheme permit. SFMTA enforcement presented evidence alleging Hollis operated without workers’ compensation coverage for several years and that his company used a medallion on more than one vehicle simultaneously, while Hollis’s counsel disputed the reliability of underlying records and argued the proposed penalty was disproportionate.
Jarvis Murray, enforcement and legal affairs manager for SFMTA taxi services, told the Board DTAS investigated records (waybills, airport transponder logs and cashier records) and found instances consistent with dual use and a prolonged failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance. Murray said the hearing officer’s decision was thorough and urged the Board to deny the appeal.
Appellate counsel Heidi Machen said DTAS relied on error‑prone evidence and that the range of past discipline in similar cases did not typically include revocation of both medallion and color scheme. Machen added Hollis had corrected gaps (carried workers’ compensation for the last year) and noted aspects of the agency’s evidence could be explained by waybill errors, transponder transcription mistakes or short‑term operational anomalies.
Commissioners probed comparative discipline, evidence categorization (69 dates alleged for simultaneous usage across four years), whether the case rose to public‑safety level, and the department’s appetite for progressive discipline. Several commissioners expressed sympathy for drivers’ access to workers’ compensation while questioning whether revocation was the right remedy. The Board voted to continue the matter to July 14 to allow the SFMTA to file a briefing recommending disciplinary range and to allow Hollis an opportunity to respond. The Board kept existing permits in effect during the continuation.
What’s next: SFMTA will submit a brief to the Board, with Hollis allowed to submit a response one week later; the Board will reconvene on July 14 for further consideration.
