The Source for Railroad Injuries & Whistleblower Protection
Federal Rail Safety Act Subsection (c)(1) prohibits railroads from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical treatment “of an employee who is injured during the course of employment.” And (c)(1) also requires that railroads provide prompt transportation to the nearest hospital for employees who are “injured during the course of employment.”
Now, in a case…
The trickle of federal district court FRSA decisions has turned into a steady stream. To keep up, here is a listing of recent district court opinions interpreting Section 20109 of the Federal Rail Safety Act, with a summary of their significance.
Temporal proximity
Myles v. Northeast Ill. Reg’l Commuter Rail Corp., 2015 U.S.…
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…
Railroad defense lawyers love to file summary judgment motions because it delays the trial while padding their hourly bills. But the Federal Rail Safety Act now allows employees to turn such motions into a sword that guts the railroad’s defense.
The facts in Smith-Bunge v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd follow a familiar pattern. Todd Smith-Bunge felt…
Once again, the federal government is telling Metro North that its “discipline trumps safety” culture must change. OSHA’s Whistleblower Directorate has found Metro North violated subsection c(2) of the Federal Rail Safety Act in seven cases. In each case, the employee followed his doctor’s order to stay home because he could not safely perform his…
Two recent decisions clarify the "intervening event" defense, the limitations period, and the basis for emotional distress damages in Federal Rail Safety Act cases.
An "Intervening Event" Is Not A FRSA Defense
Railroads often argue that the firing of an employee was based on an "intervening event" that breaks the causal connection between the FRSA protected activity and…
A recent decision against Amtrak clarifies the Federal Rail Safety Act rights of injured employees to return to work over a railroad’s objection.
After Amtrak locomotive engineer Jonette Nagra reported a work related injury, her treating neurosurgeon kept her out of work on temporary total disability. Eventually her doctor released her to return to work…
Yet another federal district court judge has rejected rail management’s election of remedies defense to Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower retaliation complaints. You can add Ratledge v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company to the growing list of federal court decisions dope slapping the railroads who raise such a hapless argument: see Solis, Reed, and…
Another federal district court judge has rejected rail management’s bogus "election of remedies" defense to Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower retaliation complaints.
Reed v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company concerned a trackman who was fired after reporting an injury. While the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees union was representing him for that disciplinary action, Reed also filed a complaint…
The federal courts and Administrative Review Board now are moving in lock step regarding the employee friendly legal standards applicable to FRSA complaints. Building on the landmark Araujo v. New Jersey Transit Rail 708 F.3d 152 (3rd Cir. 2013) federal circuit court decision, the ARB in Hutton v. Union Pacific Railroad Company confirms that the FRSA’s…