Train Law Blog

Train Law Blog

The Source for Railroad Injuries & Whistleblower Protection

Tag Archives: Connecticut False Claims Act qui tam lawyer

An $8 Million Whistleblower Settlement

Posted in False Claims Act fraud
I am pleased to announce a settlement totaling over $8 million dollars in a case brought by two whistleblower retaliation clients. Well may you ask: “Wait a minute, how do you leverage two individual employee whistleblower retaliation claims into a more than $8 million dollar settlement?” And the answer is: “Through the alchemy of the… Continue Reading

Amtrak Hit With $900,000 Whistleblower Award

Posted in False Claims Act fraud
Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) is supposed to investigate and remedy retaliation against employees who blow the whistle on contractor fraud or safety hazards. But in a ruling that raises serious questions about Amtrak’s commitment to whistle blower protection, OSHA has found Amtrak terminated one of its own OIG Supervisors for raising concerns about contractor… Continue Reading

ARB Reaffirms (c)(2) Protects Non Work Related Medical Conditions

Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
In a major decision with national implications, the Administrative Review Board confirms that Federal Rail Safety Act subsection (c)(2) does indeed protect treatments for non-work related medical conditions. Williams v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad. In so doing, the ARB explicitly rejects the 3rd Circuit’s holding in Bala v. PATH, which imposed a work related limitation on… Continue Reading

ARB Clarifies FRSA Punitive Damages Standard

Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
The Administrative Review Board has handed down an important punitive damages decision that also shows how to eliminate a railroad’s affirmative defense. In Jason Raye v. Pan Am Railways, Inc., the Railroad charged the employee with making false statements in a Federal Rail Safety Act complaint filed with OSHA. Although Raye was never actually disciplined… Continue Reading

ARB Clarifies FRSA Burdens of Proof

Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
In a major en banc decision, the Administrative Review Board clarifies the burdens of proof applicable to ALJ whistleblower trials and explains how to apply that standard. Palmer v. Canadian National Railway. This is a must read decision for anyone interested in Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower matters, but here are some of the highlights: Proof… Continue Reading

More On FRSA Punitive Damages

Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
Another Circuit Court has clarified the standard for awarding punitive damages to rail whistleblowers, this time in the context of jury instructions.  After Springfield Terminal Railway Company fired Jason Worcester for raising safety concerns, he filed a Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower complaint in federal court.  The district judge instructed the jury that:  you can award… Continue Reading

Guideposts For FRSA Punitive Damages

Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
What are the guideposts for determining the amount of punitive damages in Federal Rail Safety Act cases? According to the 10th Circuit’s decision in BNSF Railway Company v. US DOL ARB [Cain], there are three guideposts whose application is informed by the text of Section 20109: The first and most important indicator of the reasonableness… Continue Reading

Railroads Cannot Interfere With Injured Worker Medical Treatment

Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
In the landmark decision of Santiago v. Metro North Railroad, the Administrative Review Board held that Federal Rail Safety Act “Section 20109(c)(1) bars a railroad from denying, delaying, or interfering with an employee’s medical treatment throughout the period of treatment and recovery from a work injury.” The Administrative Review Board also held that a prima… Continue Reading

Administrative Review Board Clarifies FRSA Burdens of Proof

Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
In a rare en banc decision, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board explains why the Federal Rail Safety Act’s distinct two step burden of proof process must never be merged into one. Powers v. Union Pacific Railroad Company also is significant for reminding us that the subjective evaluations of railroad managers carry virtually… Continue Reading