Train Law Blog : Railroad Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Cahill Goetsch & Perry Law Firm : Railway Worker Injuries & Accidents

No matter what a railroad may try to tell you, a Federal Rail Safety Act claim under OSHA jurisdiction cannot be settled without the express written approval of OSHA. Here's why.

The FRSA itself states: "The rights and remedies in this section may not be waived by any agreement . . ." 49 USC 20109(h). And the regulations confirm that during OSHA's investigative phase, "the case may be settled if the Assistant Secretary, the complainant, and the respondent agree to a settlement." 29 CFR 1982.111(d)(1).

So what happens when there is a FELA General Release containing broad and unlimited language referring to the release of any and all matters? Can the railroad turn around and claim such a FELA Release waives any FRSA claims as well?

Short answer: no way. OSHA spells out what would happen:

If the parties do not submit their agreement to OSHA or if OSHA does not approve the agreement signed, OSHA must deny the withdrawal, inform the parties that the investigation will proceed, and issue Secretary's Findings on the merits of the case. The findings must include the statement that the parties reached a settlement that was either not submitted for review by OSHA or not approved by OSHA. 

Whistleblower Investigations Manual at Chapter Six, Section IV.D.4. So unless a FELA General Release specifically references a FRSA claim and has been approved by OSHA, it can not withdraw or bar any FRSA claim.

So what's a prudent attorney to do when a FELA Release has not been approved by OSHA? The best practice for all sides is either to exclude the FRSA entirely in body of the Release, or attach a rider to the Release along these lines:

Federal Rail Safety Act claims under the jurisdiction of OSHA’s Office of Whistleblower Protection cannot be withdrawn or settled without the express written approval of OSHA, and the parties hereby acknowledge that the attached General Release has not been submitted to OSHA and does not purport to waive any rights or remedies under the Federal Rail Safety Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an important decision clarifying the broad scope of adverse action under the Federal Rail Safety Act, Judge Theresa C. Timlin confirms that the mere act of filing of charges against an injured railroad employee is an unfavorable personnel action sufficient to support a FRSA violation.

The facts in Vernace v. PATH Rail are: after a signal tester reported an injury, the Railroad sent a disciplinary charge letter scheduling an investigation; however, the investigation hearing was never held, and the Railroad eventually dropped the charges.

The worker contended that the filing of charges scheduling a disciplinary hearing is in and of itself an adverse unfavorable personnel action, whereas the Railroad argued no adverse action took place because the employee was not actually disciplined in any way. OSHA ruled in the worker's favor, and then a full trial was held before Administrative Law Judge Timlin.

Judge Timlin began her analysis by pointing out that whistleblower laws such as the FRSA "consistently have been recognized as remedial statutes warranting broad interpretation and application." Indeed, the ARB stresses that the list of prohibited activities is quite broad, and includes reprimands (verbal or written), written warnings, and counseling sessions where the potential for future discipline is implied. And in fact the ARB holds that the scope of adverse action under whistleblower laws is even broader than the scope of adverse action under the Supreme Court's Burlington Northern v. White Title VII standard.

In ruling that the charge letter alone is a violation of the FRSA, Judge Timlin stressed that such action is not trivial:

an employer should never be permitted to deliberately single out an employees for unfavorable employment action as retaliation for protected whistleblower activity. . . .

The filing of charges against an employee is not de minimis harm. Those charges are the first step in a disciplinary process that has the potential to culminate in a warning, suspension, or termination. Once charges have been sustained and discipline meted out, the employee is then susceptible to a higher degree of punishment if he or she commits a subsequent offense. This is likely to have a chilling effect on reasonable employees, who may be dissuaded from filing injury reports for fear of being charged with safety violations and potentially being disciplined. Indeed, Complainant employee said she considered the charge letter and hearing to be very serious because she was afraid that money, lost time, and promotions were at risk due to the charges against her. . . .

The Railroad's contention that no adverse action occurred in this case because Complainant was never actually disciplined in contrary to the law. I find the filing of charges against Complainant which carried the potential for future discipline was an unfavorable personnel action.

Vernace v. PATH Rail at pages 24-27. For the full decision, click here. The moral is, once a railroad serves an employee with a charge letter, it cannot escape a FRSA violation even if it cancels the hearing and drops the charges.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The long wait is over. The Administrative Review Board has officially laid the railroad's bogus "election of remedies" defense to rest. In Mercier v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., the ARB has declared once and for all that rail workers are entitled to simultaneously pursue their rights under the Federal Rail Safety Act while also defending themselves under their collective bargaining agreement.

This confirms a worker does not waive his right to pursue a FRSA whistleblower complaint just because he also invokes his CBA right to contest a railroad's decision to impose discipline.  The best way to conceptualize this is to imagine two parallel tracks that never intersect or interfere with the other. On one track the union pursues the RLA arbitration rights of its members. On the other track the worker is free to pursue his FRSA whistleblower protection rights.

All good things come to those who wait. For a list of prior blog posts on the election of remedies issue, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

OSHA's Whistleblower Office has issued a revised and updated Whistleblower Investigations Manual that applies to complaints under the Federal Rail Safety Act. The Manual explains the process from start to finish, and workers and attorneys will find it useful to orient themselves as to the steps involved in FRSA complaints.

Two points of note: the Manual confirms OSHA investigators are to provide a copy of the railroad's response to the complainant, and confirms OSHA takes the position that the FRSA "election of remedies" subsection "does not preclude a FRSA complaint where an employee has pursued a grievance and/or arbitration pursuant to the employee's collective bargaining agreement."

For the complete text of the new Whistleblower Investigations Manual, click here. Tip: the Manual is very lengthy and covers a dozen different whistleblower laws, so use the Table of Contents to identify relevant sections to print out.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Fighting Federal Rail Safety Act claims just got a lot more expensive for railroads. Two recent appellate court decisions confirm that---no matter how small a worker's FRSA economic damages may be--the railroad has to pay the FULL amount of the worker's attorneys fees and costs. The appellate decisions apply to FRSA cases in the administrative law system as well as in federal court.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is just one step below the United States Supreme Court. In an opinion directly applicable to FRSA cases, the Second Circuit held there is no such thing as a "de minimis" award in a fee-shifting case. In Millea v. Metro North Railroad, the worker succeeded on one of two FMLA counts and recovered $615 in wages. Instead of awarding Millea's attorney $144,000 in attorney fees, the trial judge only awarded $204, finding that the award was "de minimis" and had "no public policy significance." Declaring that to be "legal error" and an "abuse of discretion," the Second Circuit reversed.

The Second Circuit stressed that by enacting fee-shifting provisions in statutes such as the FRSA, Congress "has already made the policy determination that such claims serve an important public policy purpose disproportionate to their cash value." As such, there is no such thing as a "de minimis" recovery under the FRSA. Such

claims are often small-ticket items, and small damages awards should be expected without raising the inference that the victory was technical or de minimis. . . . Especially for claims where the financial recovery is likely to be small, calculating attorneys' fees as a proportion of damages runs directly contrary to the purpose of fee-shifting statutes: assuring that civil rights claims of modest cash value can attract competent counsel. The whole purpose of fee-shifting statutes is to generate attorneys' fees that are disproportionate to the plaintiff's recovery.

Similarly, the administrative appeals court for the FRSA, the Administrative Review Board (ARB), confirms that when a worker prevails on any part of his claim, he "is entitled to all costs and expenses including attorney's fees reasonably incurred in bringing his complaint." And the ARB flatly refuses to reduce an attorney's fee award because the amount of the fee is larger than the wages recovered by the worker. Why? Because to do so would chill attorneys from taking cases where the economic losses are small in relation to the time expended by the attorney. Thus, in Furland v. American Airlines, the worker was awarded $915 in lost wages and $39,000 in attorney's fees, and the ARB refused "to reduce the attorney fee award based on its disproportionate size or because the worker only prevailed on part of his claims." So even when a worker only wins part of his FRSA claim, the railroad still has to pay the full amount of attorney's fees, no matter how small the lost wages may be.

Bottom line? The reflexive denial of FRSA claims is no longer a cost-free option for railroads. Every worker's attorney can rest easy in the knowledge that the more a railroad drags out a FRSA case, the more the attorney will get paid. And railroads must be prepared to pay ALL the fees for the lawyers on BOTH sides, even in small damage cases where only one part of the claim succeeds.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As of August 31, 2010, the Federal Rail Safety Act has its own set of regulations setting forth the requirements and procedures for every aspect of FRSA litigation, including the filing of complaints, OSHA investigations, appeals to ALJ de novo hearings, review by the ARB, and optional federal court jury trials. You can access the complete regulations by going to the FRSA Library and clicking on the link at the "FRSA Regulations" heading. Any comments on these new regulations must be sent to the DOL by November 1, 2010, via http://www.regulations.gov and refer to Docket No. OSHA-2008-0027.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The first two stages of grief are denial and anger. And when it comes to the Federal Rail Safety Act, railroads still are deeply mired in denial and anger. As a result, any time OSHA's Whistleblower Office hands down a FRSA award against a railroad, the railroad reacts with angry denial and automatically appeals for a de novo trial before an administrative law judge. Well, here is compelling evidence that such reflexive appeals of FRSA awards expose railroads to economic disaster.

In October 2008 OSHA ordered Amtrak to pay $20,000 in punitive damages plus back pay to a coach cleaner in Seattle who experienced retaliation after reporting an injury. Amtrak's denial toward the FRSA blinded it to the merits of the case, and out of anger at being ordered to pay punitive damages it reflexively appealed for a ALJ trial. The trial was held in June 2009 before ALJ Steven B. Berlin, and now ALJ Berlin has just issued a 29 page Decision and Order (the first to be issued by an ALJ after a de novo FRSA trial).

So what has Amtrak accomplished by its appeal? Let's see. Instead of paying $20,000 in punitive damages, now it must pay $100,000. Instead of paying no compensatory damages, now it must pay $60,000. Instead of paying no attorneys fees, now it must pay for the attorney fees and trial costs generated by BOTH sets of lawyers during the trial (that's right, Amtrak now must pay not only for its own attorneys but also for the employee's attorneys). So as a result of its denial and anger, the railroad will end up paying over ten times the amount of the OSHA award.  Not to mention establishing a foundation for even higher punitive damage awards against Amtrak in the future.

The lesson for railroads is clear: angry denial is not a viable defense strategy. Until you take off your blinders of denial, until you let go of your anger at the FRSA's threat to your management culture of retaliation, this pattern will be repeated again and again. Remember, the final stage of the grieving process is acceptance. The longer you stay stuck in denial and anger, the more it will cost you. And when you finally read the plain language of the FRSA's text with an open mind, and actually stop retaliating against employees who report injuries or safety concerns, it won't cost you a dime.

Stay tuned for more posts on the finer points of this important ground breaking Decision. For the full text of Nicole Anderson v. Amtrak, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rail labor attorneys, union reps, employees, and even OSHA Whistleblower investigators: Your search is ended!  Everything you need to know about the Federal Rail Safety Act is now in one easy place.  In response to numerous requests, I have created a web page entitled FRSA LIBRARY.  This is a repository for information, texts, forms, decisions, pleadings, and anything else relevant to the FRSA.  Here's an outline of the topics included in the Library:

The FRSA In A Nutshell

Text of FRSA

FRSA Legal Standard Summary

FRSA Complaint form for filing with OSHA Whistleblower Office

(including link to OSHA Whistleblower Regional Offices & Investigations Manual)

Subsection (a) Injury Reports

Subsection (c) Medical Treatment

Subsection (e) Remedies

Subsection (f) Election of Remedies

FRSA Punitive Damages

FRSA Legislative History

FRSA Administrative Law Judge Proceedings

(including link to ALJ Rules of Procedure and Rules of Evidence)

Administrative Review Board appeals from ALJ Decisions

U.S. District Court Proceedings

(including U.S. District Court Complaint form)

FRSA Retainer and Attorney Fees 

(including sample Affidavit of Fees and Costs)

Other Whistleblower Protection Statutes Available to Railroad Employees

(National Transit Systems Security Act & OSHA Section 11(c))

This is a living library designed to grow organically for the use of everyone interested in the FRSA. Help this important new statute fulfill its purpose by sending along any decisions, pleadings, forms, etc to charlie@trainlaw.com so they can be added to the appropriate section. To access the Library, go to the trainlaw site  and click on the blue button on the left hand side labelled "FRSA LIBRARY"  To receive automatic updates on breaking FRSA developments, type your email address in the subscription box at the left hand margin of this blog page. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) is a new statute with many novel questions, not the least of which is: what should the Retainer Agreement provide? Unlike FELA personal injury claims where pure contingency fee agreements are well-established, the FRSA is a different animal, with a statutory fee-shifting provision and a wide spectrum of potential make whole remedies and economic damages. The retainer agreement should strike the proper balance between protecting the interests of the employee client while giving the attorney sufficient incentive to take the case and zealously prosecute it to maximize the client's recovery. So what is an ethical attorney to do?

In response to requests from rail labor attorneys around the country, I am here sharing the FRSA Retainer Agreement developed after consultation with a legal ethics expert. BUT only with the following CAVEAT: do not use this retainer agreement before first consulting with your own ethics guru to confirm it complies with the ethical rules applicable to the jurisdictions or courts in which you practice. So with that DISCLAIMER, click here for FRSA Retainer Agreement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link