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

The Federal Rail Safety Act prohibits a railroad from "discriminating in any way" against an employee who engages in the protected activity of raising a safety concern or reporting an injury. Such discrimination can take many forms, but two recent decisions highlight a classic example: namely, treating a worker differently from other similarly situated workers.

In Gunderson & Peterson v. BNSF Railway Co., AL J Paul C. Johnson, Jr. confirms that the FRSA prohibits a railroad from singling out for discipline an employee who engages in protected activity while ignoring similarly situated employees. Peterson was fired for accessing certain personal information relating to other employees, and Gunderson was fired for using "rough language" while talking to a supervisor. But Judge Johnson denied summary judgment because the Railroad "presented no evidence that it has terminated other employees for similar behavior." As such, the Railroad could not prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected activity.

The facts of Infermo v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. are indeed classic. Infermo and his co-worker Gelmi are walking on ballast along the right of way. Both stumble in a washed out area, but only Infermo falls and is injured. He reports the injury, and is disciplined for violating the railroad's absurdly vague safety rules ("Employees must be aware of their surroundings . . . Employees must be alert and watch where they are walking"). His co-worker is not disciplined, nor are the railroad managers responsible for allowing the hazardous condition to exist.

The Railroad argued it legitimately disciplined Infermo because he did in fact violate those safety rules, but in denying summary judgment Senior U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler explained why a FRSA jury would be entitled to reject that articulated reason:

his work partner [Gelmi] was walking along the same allegedly hazardous path and would have presumably, according to NJT's rationale for disciplining Infermo, failed to avoid the same tripping hazards. Indeed, Gelmi testified that he, too, lost his footing on the right of way but, unlike Infermo, was able to steady himself and avoid falling. Gelmi was not charged with any safety violations, nor required to attend any safety counseling. Infermo points out that the only difference between his conduct and Gelmi's conduct on the day in question is that Infermo suffered an injury whereas Gelmi did not. This evidence, the Court finds, casts doubt on NJT's articulated legitimate reason and would permit a jury to disbelieve it.

So the message is clear: unless a railroad disciplines everyone whose actions or inaction contributed to the injury incident (including managers), it can not single out the injured worker for discipline without violating the FRSA and inviting a jury to impose punitive damages.

Call me crazy, but there is an alternative: don't discipline anyone. Instead, take all the energy spent on disciplining the injured worker and redirect it toward identifying and correcting the causes of the hazardous condition so it will not injure again. That would truly promote safety while completely avoiding hefty FRSA damages. Just a thought.

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

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

The damages for violations of the Federal Rail Safety Act just keep expanding. The latest record breaker goes against the Union Pacific Railroad: $175,000 in punitive damages and $100,000 for emotional distress, all for firing a conductor who reported a minor injury.

In addition to the immediate reinstatement, lost wages, and attorney fees ordered, this case is notable for the $100,000 in damages to compensate for the conductor's "distress, humiliation, depression, mental anguish, lessened self esteem, anxiety and embarrassment" resulting from the RR's actions. And also for the $175,00 in punitive damages, based on: the economic harm suffered by the employee; the fact the UP managers knew of the FRSA's prohibition against retaliation yet went ahead and retaliated anyway; and the UP's well established pattern of retaliation against employees who exercise their FRSA right to report work-related injuries.

So, hats off to Conductor Annen and her attorney for standing up and using the FRSA to expose the rottenness at the core of UP's management culture. For the full text of the Annen v. UP RR Merit Finding, click here.

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

If a railroad worker wins his Federal Rail Safety Act complaint, the railroad has to pay all his attorney fees. But if a FRSA complaint fails, the railroad cannot recover any attorney fees or costs against the worker.

Administrative Law Judge Adele H. Odegard's decision in Vason v. Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) explains why: unlike the NTSSA, the FRSA does not provide for any award of attorney fees on behalf of a railroad. So don't let a railroad threaten you with the prospect of paying their attorney fees: it can never happen, even if your FRSA complaint fails.

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

Instead of naming the railroad, workers are free to name a manager as the defendant in a Federal Rail Safety Act complaint. And there are good reasons for doing so.

When a manager is singled out as illegally retaliating against workers, it is a form of public "shaming" that does not help his future career prospects. It also raises the unsettling potential for that manager to be held personally liable for any economic damages, thus making him think twice before retaliating again. And it creates an official record that can be used as a basis for a FRA disqualification of that manager from working in the railroad industry. For an explanation of how to disqualify such managers, click here.

So managers who retaliate should be prepared to suffer all the negative consequences of being personally named as the defendant in a FRSA complaint.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

 A leading U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified when rail workers can recover damages for outrageous conduct by their employer railroad. Building on two cases that I handled (Metro North Railroad v. Buckley in the U.S. Supreme Court and Higgins v. Metro North Railroad in the Second Circuit), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has declared that a worker can recover for a purely emotional injury (involving no physical impact) only if he or she was within a "zone of danger of physical impact."

 Goodrich v. LIRR involved an electrician who sought to recover under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) for his emotional distress after a fellow worker intentionally posted his HIV positive status on a company bulletin board. The Circuit Court ruled that under the FELA the electrician could not recover because there was no physical impact or threat of physical impact involved. So no matter how outrageous the conduct, unless there is some physical impact or imminent threat of serious physical impact, under the FELA a railroad worker has no recovery for emotional distress.

But that is not the case if the worker is protected by the Federal Rail Safety Act. Under the FRSA, physical impact is not necessary for the recovery of emotional distress damages, and a worker can recover for any emotional distress resulting from a railroad's violation of his FRSA rights. And punitive damages up to $250,000 also are recoverable under the FRSA for outrageous conduct by the railroad.

So, even if a worker has no claim under the FELA for emotional distress, he still may be able to recover emotional distress damages under the FRSA. 

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

It's one of the hoariest acts in the railroad repertoire of retaliation: first, invent rules setting an arbitrary deadline for the reporting of injuries, and then use the threat of discipline under those rules to discourage the reporting of injuries. Classic examples of absurd reporting rules are Metro North Railroad's "all injuries must be reported immediately" and CSX Transportation's "all injuries must be reported prior to the end of the shift." Such arbitrary rules outlaw entire categories of FRA reportable injuries.

No more. Under the Federal Rail Safety Act, the reporting of injuries cannot be used as the basis for discipline. And because any discipline for "late reporting" is necessarily based on the reporting of an injury, it is a prima facie violation of the FRSA. And railroads who continue to discipline for "late reporting" are getting slammed with record high punitive damages. See, for example, Harvey v. Union Pacific Railroad.

So, thanks to the FRSA, there is no longer any such thing as the "late reporting" of an injury. The railroad repertoire of retaliation just keeps getting smaller and smaller.

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

There has been a flurry of Federal Rail Safety Act decisions in the past few weeks, all positive for workers, and all demonstrating a trend toward higher punitive damage awards.

Pfeifer v. Union Pacific Railroad concerns retaliation against a conductor who reported safety hazards. After he reported rough spots on the railroad track, he was subjected to increased field testing and ultimately suspended without pay. OSHA found that such conduct has a real chilling effect on the willingness of workers to report safety issues, and ordered Union Pacific to pay $100,000 in punitive damages for its "outrageous behavior and callous disregard for the rights of its employees."

Newman v. Union Pacific Railroad also concerns retaliation against a conductor who reported safety concerns. He was pulled out of service and permanently dismissed from service in retaliation for taking safety seriously enough to report safety hazards he noted in the right-of-way. OSHA ordered Union Pacific to pay over $250,000 in make whole damages, including $150,000 in punitive damages.

Wallis v. Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway concerns a hostler who reported an injury and was subjected to the Railroad's infamous Personal Performance Index Point Distribution (PPI) policy, which assigns disciplinary points to injuries that are FRA reportable. The hostler was suspended without pay for 30 days, and OSHA found that Union Pacific's enforcement of its PPI policy for reporting a work-related injury violates the FRSA. OSHA ordered the Railroad to pay $150,000 in punitive damages, which reflects the FRSA's antipathy to system-wide policies of retaliation, and $125,000 for "mental pain and suffering," which reflects the solid medical evidence documenting the hostler's emotional distress.

Harvey v. Union Pacific Railroad concerns a locomotive engineer who reported an injury two months after it occurred. Despite the fact he was "a dedicated employee who had no history of prior poor performance or misconduct," Union Pacific terminated him for "failing to report an injury in a timely manner." However, OSHA found the engineer "was reasonable in delaying reporting his injury because he initially did not believe he had been so severely injured as to warrant putting himself at risk of retaliation for reporting the injury." The Railroad was ordered to pay $150,000 in punitive damages "for its egregious and willful behavior and for its disregard for the rights of its employees under FRSA." OSHA also ordered the Railroad to pay $75,000 for the "undue pain and suffering" it caused.

For OSHA's press release about the three Union Pacific cases, click here.  Over the past two years FRSA punitive damage awards have progressed from $75,000 to $100,000 to $125,000 and now to $150,000. But the railroads could care less. They have continued doing business as usual, or rather violations as usual, and their management culture of retaliation remains intact. If OSHA wants the railroads to take the FRSA seriously, it will have to increase punitive damage awards to the maximum allowed by law, and impose system-wide injunctions against every railroad's retaliatory policies and patterns of conduct.

But the message from these recent cases is clear: the path to six figure punitive and emotional distress damages is starting to get very well-trod, and promises to expand into a highway routinely traveled by thousands of workers if railroads continue to ignore the FRSA's mandate to treat the reporting of injuries and safety concerns as discipline-free events.

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

As Yogi Berra would say, "It's starting to get late early out there" for the Norfolk Southern Railway. OSHA has blown the whistle on NS's campaign of retaliation against injured workers, and the Federal Rail Safety Act awards and punitive damages just keep piling up.

In the latest, Nelson v. Norfolk Southern Railway, OSHA's investigation confirmed that employees "are reluctant to report an injury and/or illness, fearing that they will be targeted and eventually terminated from employment." Which explains how NS has kept its injury rates low enough to receive "the prestigious E.H. Harriman Rail Safety Gold Medal Award for 22 consecutive years." Only in the railroad industry could managers receive a safety medal for suppressing the reporting of injuries.

OSHA notes the "chilling effect" of NS's "reckless disregard for the law" and points to how NS "has been cited previously by the Federal Railroad Administration for harassing and intimidating employees from reporting injuries" in violation of FRA regulations. OSHA concludes that NS's "disregard for Complainant's rights under FRSA warrants punitive damages" in the amount of $75,000, plus another $20,000 for emotional distress and $26,000 in attorney fees.

When it comes to railroads like the NS, all that glitters is not gold.

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

It's official. Thanks to the Federal Rail Safety Act, railroads can no longer impose discipline based on vague safety rules that are triggered only when a worker reports an injury.

Every railroad has so-called "safety" rules stating employees must "be alert and attentive" and "take care to prevent injury to themselves" and "when in doubt take the safe course." Any worker who reports an injury automatically is in violation of such rules, whose only function is to provide a basis to discipline workers who report injuries. In effect, such rules prohibit employees from being injured, and then are used as a bogus basis to discipline workers who report an injury.

Those days are over. In a case where a conductor slipped on ice and was suspended for ten days after the railroad found he "was not alert" and "caused an injury to himself" and "did not take the safe course," OSHA's Whistleblower Office slapped the railroad with $100,000 in FRSA punitive damages, plus $25,000 for emotional distress. From now on, railroads that uses such vague "safety" rules to discipline injured employees are just asking to get hit with FRSA punitive damages. For the full text of the FRSA Award, click here.

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

Here's the latest judicial decision rejecting the bogus "election of remedies" defense railroads continue to raise in Federal Rail Safety Act cases. This one is especially sweet in that it allows a worker to continue her frontal attack against Norfolk Southern Railway's notorious practice of firing employees who report on duty injuries.

The facts are familiar to anyone who deals with Norfolk Southern. Latonya Milton reported an injury five days after the incident that caused the injury, and as usual NS fired her for filing an "untimely" injury report and for making "false and conflicting statements" regarding the reporting of her injury. She appealed the termination through her collective bargaining agreement, and also filed a FRSA complaint with OSHA's Whistleblower Office. NS argued that her CBA appeal was an "election of remedies" that precluded her from pursuing a FRSA claim.

Judge Malamphy rejected that argument, ruling Milton "is not precluded from appealing her termination pursuant to her collective bargaining agreement while simultaneously litigating this claim under the FRSA." NS asked for an immediate reconsideration, but to no avail. The Judge again concluded: "I find that the FRSA does not prevent an individual who has filed a grievance pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement from pursuing a complaint under the FRSA." How many times do judges have to rule before the railroads accept reality? For the complete text of both decisions, click here.

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

Are you fed up with rail managers who habitually ignore safety rules and regulations, and then blame the workers who get hurt as a result of management's unsafe practices? Now you can do something about it. Here's how to disqualify such managers from ever working in the railroad industry again.

There is a little known Federal Rail Administration regulation that gives the FRA the power to permanently disqualify unsafe rail managers from railroad work. Entitled "Disqualification Procedures," it sets forth how the FRA bans managers and supervisors "who have demonstrated their unfitness to perform safety-sensitive functions by violating any rule, regulation, order, or standard prescribed by the FRA." It applies to all managers involved in a railroad's operations, track, equipment, or training departments.

The process begins when information about such a manager comes to the FRA's attention (more on that below). The FRA then issues a Notice of Proposed Disqualification charging the manager with violating one or more of the FRA's rules, regulations, or standards. The manager is then subjected to a public hearing before an administrative law judge where the FRA's Chief Counsel presents witnesses and documents proving the facts alleged in the Notice of Disqualification. If the charges are sustained, the judge then issues an order disqualifying the manager from any safety sensitive job on any railroad. The only appeal is to the FRA Administrator, whose decision is final and not subject to any further review. Thereafter any railroad that fails to inform prospective employers of a manager's disqualification or who actually hires a disqualified manager must pay penalties of up to $11,000 per day or $4 million per year.

Here's where you come in. In order for this process to work, the FRA needs to be provided with the information confirming a manager's violation of a safety rule or regulation. That means providing documents and the names of witnesses able to verify the manager's violation. So if you want to turn the tables on managers who ignore safety while blaming the workers who get hurt as a result, send a confidential email to charlie@trainlaw.com (or the designated legal counsel of your choice) explaining the manager's violation and listing the witnesses and documents that will confirm the violation. We will evaluate whether that information is strong enough for the FRA to pull the trigger on the unsafe manager.

And remember, if you do end up providing that information to the FRA, the Federal Rail Safety Act protects you from any retaliation by your employer railroad! So you have nothing to fear, and your co-workers and the FRA will thank you for it.

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

Talk about timing. I was on trial in federal court last week in a FELA injury case. The Railroad, no doubt hoping the U.S. Supreme Court would eliminate the FELA's long standing "even to the slightest degree" causation standard and replace it with the less favorable "proximate cause," had made a low ball offer and asked the Judge to charge the jury on the proximate cause standard. At 10:35 am on Thursday morning the Judge was ready to read his charge, but first turned to me and asked, "Mr. Goetsch, any word on the McBride Supreme Court decision?" I pulled out my IPhone and saw that only minutes before the Supreme Court had handed down the McBride decision upholding the FELA's "even to the slightest degree" standard. I replied, "Judge, the FELA remains intact. No reason to change the usual charge." The jury was charged accordingly, and later returned a verdict five times more than the Railroad's offer.

The purpose of the FELA is to promote safe railroad operations by allowing negligently injured workers to recover full jury damages. That's why Teddy Roosevelt pushed the FELA through Congress 103 years ago, to give the railroads an economic incentive to be safe. Last week the future of the FELA hung in the balance, but now we can thank the Supreme Court for upholding the FELA and refusing to cripple what is the original rail safety law. Somewhere, Teddy Roosevelt is smiling a big toothy grin. For the full decision in CSX Transportation Inc. v. McBride, click here.

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

Add this to the growing chorus of judicial voices shouting down the bogus "election of remedies" defense raised by railroads. In a cogent decision, Judge Berlin confirms that Federal Rail Safety Act  complaints are independent of Railway Labor Act disciplinary proceedings and cannot be derailed by a RLA award reinstating an employee with back pay.

Here are the facts. Union Pacific employee Robert Powers reported an on the job injury, and his doctor put him on medical leave with medical restrictions. The Railroad secretly videotaped Powers doing certain activities it claimed violated his medical restrictions, and then fired him. Powers filed a FRSA retaliation complaint, and on his behalf the union appealed the termination to a RLA arbitration board. When the RLA Board reinstated Powers with back pay, the Railroad moved to dismiss his FRSA complaint, arguing that his use of the RLA process constituted an "election of remedies" barring a FRSA claim. Judge Berlin soundly rejected that argument. Here are some excerpts from the opinion:

The FRSA requires what it terms an "election of remedies" as follows: "An employee may not seek protection under both this section and another provision of law for the same allegedly unlawful act of the railroad carrier." 49 U.S.C. § 20109(f). The ultimate question presented here is whether the union's pursuit of a grievance, asserting on Complainant's behalf rights under a collective bargaining agreement, constitutes an election of remedies under the Federal Rail Safety Act and forecloses the present action.

At the RLA arbitration, the union was limited to the remedies that the collective bargaining agreement allowed. Those remedies did not include emotional distress or punitive damages. In contrast, the Federal Rail Safety Act allows these remedies. See 29 U.S.C. §20109(e)(2)(C), (e)(3) (providing compensatory damages plus possible punitive damages not to exceed $250,000).

The FRSA's election of remedies provision could apply only if the remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement are no less than those under the Act, which include compensatory damages and permissible punitive damages of at least $250,000. Nothing on the record suggests the collective bargaining agreement allows for such remedies.

The union's pursuing a grievance did not trigger the election of remedies provision in the Federal Rail Safety Act. It was an act of the union, not of Complainant, and it did not allege an "unlawful act' but was limited to a claimed breach of contract. It was based on the union's choice to pursue an avenue with lesser remedies than those that the statute affords.

I find that Union Pacific construes the election of remedies provision too broadly. Complainant is correct that his union's pursuit of a remedy under the collective bargaining agreement did not trigger the Act's election of remedies provision.

I conclude that, when a union chooses to pursue a grievance on behalf of an employee, it is acting as a union, and that this is distinct from an election of the individual employee to seek a remedy other than under the Federal Rail Safety Act. As the union, not Complainant, pursued the grievance, Complainant did not trigger the election of remedies provision in the Act.

Well said. For the full text of Judge Berlin's decision, click here.

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

The Union Pacific Railroad is about to learn the hard way that arrogance is not a defense to the Federal Rail Safety Act.

The FRSA gives OSHA the power to order the "preliminary reinstatement" of an employee with full back pay. The reinstatement goes into immediate effect even if the railroad objects to OSHA's findings. And even if the railroad ultimately overturns OSHA's award, the railroad can never recover the reinstatement wages it paid.

Railroads mess with the power of preliminary reinstatement at their peril. Case in point. After UP machinist Brian Petersen reported an injury, he was suspended, dismissed, and then returned to service subject to instant termination at the whim of any manager. Sure enough, four days after returning to work under that draconian condition, a manager saw him and two other machinists standing on Timken Bearings in order to read the serial numbers off of traction motors. Petersen was immediately sent home and dismissed in all capacities. Nothing happened to the two machinist who were with him doing the same thing.

Petersen suffered emotional and financial harm due to UP's decision to terminate him. He went into debt and had to move his wife and children to find other work. The stress was so intense he ended up in the emergency room with what appeared to be a heart attack. OSHA found UP's disparate treatment of Petersen to be in outrageous violation of the FRSA, and ordered $214,000 in make whole remedies, including: immediate reinstatement; $105,000 in back pay; $17,000 for emotional distress and moving expenses; $75,000 in punitive damages; and $17,000 in attorney's fees. For the full decision, click here.

So how did UP respond? In an insolent affront to the authority of OSHA, UP emailed OSHA stating that it "will not implement the preliminary order for reinstatement." Big mistake. Despite its arrogance, UP is no match for the power of the United States government. The United States Attorney will promptly enforce OSHA's reinstatement order in United States District Court, and all UP will end up accomplishing is to confirm its "reckless disregard" for the FRSA rights of its employees, thus setting the stage for even greater FRSA punitive damage awards in the future.

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

OSHA has blown the whistle on Norfolk Southern Railway Company's practice of disciplining injured workers based on bogus "falsification" charges. From now on, Norfolk Southern's "falsification" strategy will cost it dearly.

In order to discourage the reporting of injuries, Norfolk Southern routinely charges injured employees with "falsifying" the injury. That is what happened to Conductor Jeff Thompson. After he reported an injury, he was accused of falsifying his symptoms and was suspended for six weeks. A RLA arbitrator ordered Norfolk Southern to pay all of his back wages, and now OSHA is ordering the Railroad to pay $15,000 for his emotional distress and another $15,000 in attorney fees.

This Award is noteworthy because (1) it lays the groundwork for punitive damages against Norfolk Southern for such egregious conduct, and (2) it confirms that a RLA award of back wages does not prevent OSHA from ordering the full spectrum of Federal Rail Safety Act economic and equitable remedies. For the full text of the Award, click here.

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

The Federal Employers Liability Act is the law that protects rail workers who are injured or killed on the job. The most important FELA case to reach the United States Supreme Court in the last 50 years was argued this morning. At stake is whether the FELA's long recognized standard of relaxed causation---namely, that a railroad is liable for an employee's injury or death if it "results in whole or part, even to the slightest degree," from the negligence of the railroad---was going to be overturned and replaced with a higher hurdle more difficult for employees to clear.

Arguing on behalf of all railroad employees was David C. Frederick, a veteran Supreme Court advocate who did an excellent job explaining why the relaxed standard must remain in place. If you have never been to a Supreme Court oral argument, the transcript of this morning's argument is well worth reading to get a flavor of how our nation's highest court deals with issues that affect the entire country. For the transcript of CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, click here. A decision will be handed down by June, so stay tuned.

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

OSHA's Whistleblower Office has slammed Metro North Railroad with punitive damages for using a Federal Rail Safety Act complaint as a basis for disciplining a worker. After a laborer at Metro North's New Haven Shop filed a FRSA complaint, the Railroad charged the worker with "Conduct unbecoming a Metro-North employee in that you filed a false statement in your complaint to OSHA claiming violations of the Federal Rail Safety Act." Metro North then held a disciplinary trial on that charge and issued a 30-day suspension. Even though Metro North later dropped the suspension and the worker lost no wages, OSHA nevertheless imposed over $80,000 in punitive damages and attorney fees against the Railroad.

OSHA found that "All the evidence indicates that the management officials most involved in the trial and decision knew that the charges and subsequent discipline were retaliatory but they allowed it to happen anyway." OSHA went on to warn railroads:

The acts of bringing disciplinary charges and instituting trial proceedings against an employee for filing a complaint with OSHA and accusing the employee of lying to OSHA in those charges and proceedings have a chilling effect on the Railroad's employees and would tend to dissuade others from asserting their rights under FRSA. Even if the charge is later dropped, that does not remedy this chilling effect, as the act of bringing the charge against an employee undermines all of the Railroad's employees' willingness and ability to exercise their most basic rights under FRSA. . . . Metro North's conduct in retaliation against an employee for filing a FRSA complaint with OSHA exhibited a reckless disregard for the law and complete indifference to the Complainant's rights and the rights of Metro North's other employees. Bringing disciplinary charges against an employee that on their face threaten discipline for claiming violations of FRSA (regardless of whether the charges are later dropped) functions to chill employees from exercising their most basic rights under FRSA.

In a Press Release, OSHA's Regional Administrator indicated that the FRSA is designed to remedy the "culture of silence in which hazardous conditions are masked because employees will be fearful of reporting them" and stressed it is "unconscionable" for a railroad to discipline an employee for  invoking his FRSA rights.

The message to railroads nationwide is: workers who file FRSA complaints are protected from any discipline that is based in whole or in part on the filing or content of the complaint. So don't even think about using a FRSA complaint as the basis for discipline, unless of course you enjoy getting hit with punitive damages. For the complete text of the decision, click here. For access to the FRSA Library, click here.  For a National Public Radio piece on this Award, click here.

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

Case law is beginning to clarify punitive damages under the Federal Rail Safety Act. Such damages are based on a railroad's callous indifference toward the FRSA rights of its employees. Here is some conduct justifying the imposition of FRSA punitive damages:

• discouraging employees from filing injury reports or raising safety concerns
• targeting for closer scrutiny employees who report injuries or raise safety concerns
• blaming an injured employee without addressing the underlying systemic causes of the particular injury
• disciplining employees who report injuries without disciplining the managers who contributed to the circumstances that made the injury possible
• attempting to influence employee medical care or otherwise interfering with medical treatment
• disciplining employees who follow the orders or treatment plans of their treating doctors
• tying compensation of supervisors or managers to injury statistics or goals
• failing to have a HR manager or attorney review disciplinary actions to assure compliance with the FRSA

The leading FRSA punitive damages case to date is Anderson v. Amtrak. The Judge there discussed this type of conduct and awarded $100,000 in punitive damages, noting "At this point, Amtrak is on clear notice that these practices exist; any continuing failure to remedy them could amount to further and additional conscious disregard of its obligations." That Judge recently denied Amtrak's Motion For Reconsideration, noting:

Amtrak neglects that part of the reason for punitive damages is to punish those who act in conscious disregard of an employee's federally protected rights. As to the deterrent effect of punitive damages, Amtrak . . . has offered nothing to show that its culture has changed, that employees no longer feel deterred from reporting injuries, and that managers responding to employees' injury reports now respect those employees' federally protected rights.

Haunting words indeed for railroads nationwide. Managers ignore them at their peril. For the full text of both decisions, go to the Punitive Damages section of FRSA Library.

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

OSHA's Whistleblower Office will never approve a Federal Rail Safety Act settlement that includes confidentiality. Why? Because the FRSA is supposed to remedy the chilling effects of retaliatory actions, not lock them in. And in the railroad grapevine, no retaliatory action goes unnoticed. When employees see a co-worker hammered after raising safety, injury, or fraud concerns, it exercises a profound chilling effect on their willingness to do the same. The only way to remedy that chilling effect is to publicly hold railroads accountable for their violations of the FRSA, which is why OSHA issues press releases announcing FRSA findings against railroads.

But for lawyers, insisting on or agreeing to confidentiality clauses in FRSA settlements invites charges of unethical conduct. Here's why.

Under Rule 3.4(f) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a railroad attorney cannot ethically propose a settlement agreement that prevents a FRSA complainant from giving relevant factual information to other railroad workers or OSHA. Here is a quote from the leading article on the subject:

Proposed settlement clauses that would expressly bar the plaintiff from voluntarily cooperating with parties, agencies, or lawyers who are suing or investigating the defendant clearly run afoul of Rule 3.4(f), even if they allow for disclosures in response to a subpoena. Equally important, blanket confidentiality clauses that bar any discussion of the underlying facts and make no exception for disclosures of relevant information to other litigants violate the rule as well.

Malone and Bauer, "Unethical Secret Settlements: Just Say No," Trial (Sept. 2010). Click here for a version of the Trial article, and click here for a more in-depth discussion by Prof. Jon Bauer in the Oregon Law Review. Given the FRSA's provision for punitive damages, it is especially important for OSHA's Whistleblower Office to have unfettered access to all information relevant to their FRSA investigations. Rail workers simply cannot be barred from sharing their FRSA complaint experiences with OSHA or with co-workers and their attorneys.

And if a FRSA complaint stems from a rail worker's work related injury, it would be a federal crime for a railroad attorney even to attempt to prevent a FRSA complainant from voluntarily furnishing information regarding his injury that is relevant to another worker's injury. Section 60 of the FELA makes it a federal crime for a railroad or its attorney to attempt to prohibit such sharing of information among co-workers. 45 USC 60.

Moreover, Rule 5.6(b) of the Model Rules prohibits lawyers from participating in any settlement agreement that restricts a lawyer's right to practice. Again, to quote Malone and Bauer's analysis:

settlements that prohibit a plaintiff lawyer from using any information obtained during the case have been found to violate the rule, because such a promise would interfere with the lawyer's ability to provide effective representation to others suing the same defendant.

So here's the message to rail labor attorneys representing FRSA complainants: other than the dollar amount of a settlement, just say no to confidentiality in FRSA cases. And here's the message to railroad attorneys defending FRSA cases: don't even think about asking for confidentiality, unless of course you enjoy being the subject of bar disciplinary committee proceedings.

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

Federal Rail Safety Act Section 20109(c)(1) prohibits railroads from "deny[ing], delay[ing] or interfer[ing] with the medical or first aid treatment of an employee who is injured during the course of employment." In the first case to interpret the meaning of (c)(1), OSHA took the position the scope of that prohibition goes beyond initial medical treatment. However, the ALJ's post-trial decision adopted a narrower scope: "I conclude that Section 20109(c)(1)'s mandate prohibiting railroads from 'deny[ing], delay[ing] or interfere[ing] with medical or first aid treatment of an employee who is injured during employment' applies to the temporal period surrounding the injury."  Santiago v. Metro North at page 24. It remains to be seen if this narrower scope will prevail on appeal to the ARB or in the federal courts.

However, it is clear the scope of Section 20109(c)(2) is not so limited. Section (c)(2) mandates that railroads "may not discipline, or threaten discipline to, an employee . . . for following the orders or treatment plan of a treating physician." Thus (c)(2) explicitly prohibits railroads from disciplining an employee during the entire period of time the employee is following the orders or treatment plan of a treating doctor. And the absence in (c)(2) of any phrase qualifying that the employee must have been "injured during the course of employment" means that railroads are prohibited from disciplining any employee for following the orders or treatment plan of a treating doctor.  This means a railroad cannot use absences from work ordered by a treating doctor as a basis for attendance discipline.  And it means an employee cannot be disciplined for insubordination when he follows his doctor's order not to travel and thus refuses to travel to a railroad medical department appointment.

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

Another Judge has ruled that the Railway Labor Act does not preclude Federal Rail Safety Act actions. To quote from the second post-trial ALJ FRSA decision to be handed down:

          The reach of the RLA is limited to disputes involving the interpretation or application of existing labor agreements. It does not address allegations or claims that the railroad violated federal statutes prohibiting discrimination against an employee. . . . The source of the instant claim is Sections 20109(a)(4) and 20109(c)(1) of the FRSA, which prohibit any railroad from discriminating against an employee for reporting a work injury and prohibits a railroad from denying, delaying or interfering with the medical or first aid treatment of an employee injured during the course of employment. Resolution of the question of whether Metro North discriminated against the Complainant requires interpretation and application of the FRSA and not the CBA between the parties. The present action is not preempted by the RLA. 

Anthony Santiago v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co., Inc, 2009-FRS-00011 (September 14, 2010) at pages 14-15. For the complete decision, click here. More about this case to come.

Anthony Santiago v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co., Inc

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

Railroads are losing their campaign to gut the Federal Rail Safety Act by claiming that the Railway Labor Act precludes rail workers from invoking FRSA protection. In a resounding well-reasoned decision, Administrative Law Judge Richard A. Morgan explains that Congress enacted the FRSA "to allow employees to attempt to vindicate their rights using multiple means" and that the FRSA "clearly dictates that an employee is not precluded from pursuing both his RLA appeal to arbitration and his FRSA whistleblower protection complaint." For the full text of Newman v. Union Railroad, click here (PDF).

So the RLA does not preempt the FRSA. Ever. The two statutes simply run on separate tracks. In the words of Judge Morgan, employees are "not precluded from appealing their RLA discipline pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement while simultaneously litigating against the railroad through the FRSA." Kudos to Attorney Daniel J. Cohen and his client Charles Newman for adding another nail to the coffin of rail managment's bogus "election of remedies" defense.  For more background on this issue, click here.

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

Teddy Roosevelt would be proud. 102 years after he signed the original rail safety statute into law, the Federal Employers Liability Act is still doing its job: exposing the unsafe practices of railroads and holding railroads accountable for the employee injuries that result.

The sad truth is, rail managers habitually ignore their own responsibility for the unsafe conditions that injure workers and instead focus all blame on the victim. This has the noxious effect of leaving the root cause of injuries in place, thereby prolonging the risk and guaranteeing more employee injuries. But in the right hands, the FELA is a powerful weapon that can pierce the armor of rail management denial and expose the truth about unsafe work practices. The remarkable story of electrician Jim Deacon is a case in point (see below for news links)

One of the most horrifying dangers on any railroad is a high voltage electrical arc explosion. During an arc explosion metal melts into a superheated plasma that engulfs workers in a fireball hotter than surface of sun, and is usually caused by defective cable connections. To prevent arc explosions, railroads must routinely inspect electrical equipment to confirm all connections are secure.  And to completely eliminate the risk of arc explosions, railroads must deenergize the power before employees begin working on the equipment.

On October 30, 2006, electrical tester Jim Deacon was assigned to work inside a third rail sectionalizing switch box that was an arc explosion waiting to happen. Because Metro North had not inspected that box, Metro North did not know there was a positive 700 volt cable under a metal motor housing that was completely disconnected and touching the metal housing, thus electrifying it. When Jim took off his protective gloves in order to thread a narrow #6 negative wire (following the practice in the field), the negative wire happened to touch the improperly electrified metal motor housing, sparking an arc explosion fireball. Jim spent a week in the Burn Unit with second and third degree burns over 15% of his body. Over the next year he endured three surgeries with multiple skin grafts.

And what of Jim's Metro North managers? Instead of taking responsibility for causing the explosion by their unsafe practice of not inspecting and not deenergizing, Metro North blamed Jim for his injury and disciplined him for not wearing gloves at the moment of the explosion. And instead of preserving the crucial evidence, the managers destroyed the cable end and connector barrel involved in the explosion, and denied they had shot any videotape during their investigation. Fortunately an anonymous source mailed Jim a copy of the video shot by the top manager showing him personally ordering workers to reach inside the live box without protective gloves on, the very same act for which the manager disciplined Jim.

Jim returned to work in the Metro North Power Department for 17 months, but the ongoing unfair blame and unsafe working conditions took a severe toll on his psychological condition, to the point he was medically disqualified from working.

But the FELA finally forced the Railroad to admit the truth. After 3.5 years of blaming Jim, on the eve of trial Metro North admitted the explosion was caused by its negligence and that Jim did not contribute to his injuries in any way. This crucial vindication--plus the $1.1 million Metro North will pay Jim--would not have happened without the FELA.

So Teddy Roosevelt's rail safety law is indeed working as intended. For a two minute video regarding the arc explosion, go to the New Haven Register news site, where a copy of rail safety expert James Sottile's excellent Report detailing the failures of Metro North management is available as well.

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

The largest award under the  Federal Rail Safety Act  has just been handed down against New Jersey Transit Rail. OSHA's Whistleblower Office found NJ Transit violated the FRSA by disciplining a worker in retaliation for his reporting an injury, and has ordered the payment of $570,000 in damages to make him whole. This Award is historic not only because of its size, but because of the broad spectrum of its "make whole" damages, including punitive damages and damages for ruining his credit.

The worker--my client conductor Anthony Araujo--witnessed a fatal 13,000 volt electric arc explosion involving a contractor crew. In such a situation, if NJ Transit had any grounds for believing Tony had contributed to the incident, federal regulations required the Railroad to drug and alcohol test him. However, after extensive interrogation, NJ Transit told Tony he had done nothing wrong, and confirmed that by not testing him for drugs and alcohol.

Tony then was sent to the Railroad's EAP for counseling, and the EAP Senior Counselor informed him he was not able to work and referred him for immediate treatment. This resulted in a lost time reportable injury. The next day the NJ Transit General Superintendent called the EAP to complain, and soon after filed disciplinary charges claiming Tony contributed to the fatal incident after all. Over the next year, the Railroad denied Tony his EAP benefits and then suspended him without pay. As a result of his lost income, Tony's credit rating plummeted, his car was repossessed, and the bank foreclosed on his home, generating significant mental distress.

The FRSA is notable because it creates a statutory right for rail workers to win punitive damages against their employer railroads.  OSHA's investigation here found that because NJ Transit's "conduct in retaliation against an employee for reporting an FRA reportable lost time injury exhibited reckless disregard for the law and complete indifference to complainant's rights," punitive damages are warranted.  Unless and until rail managers respect the FRSA rights of their workers, punitive damage awards will be routine.

In the past, railroads were free to discipline employees without having to worry about paying economic damages beyond limited back pay.  Those days are now over.  This Award makes clear railroads will pay full damages for all of the economic losses their retaliatory discipline inflicts on workers, including the value of homes and cars lost as a result of employees being forced out of work. For the full text of the Araujo Award, click here. For OSHA's Press Release, click here.

This case strips bare the retaliatory mentality of rail managers. With my help, Anthony Araujo was able to stand up for his FRSA rights and do his part in labor's crusade to transform the retaliatory culture of rail management. This Award confirms that the FRSA hands to every rail worker the sword and shield necessary to wage that crusade. And the message of this Award to railroads is loud and clear: your world has changed, and managers ignore the FRSA at their peril. So here's to Tony, and to the thousands of long suffering railroad workers who will be following the trail he blazed.

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

The first Federal Rail Safety Act complaint against the Port Authority Trans-Hudson railroad has resulted in an award of punitive damages. The fact pattern is familiar to any railroad worker.

Laura, a Signal Tester, was injured on duty due to defective equipment, and duly reported her injury. But instead of using the incident as an opportunity to identify and correct the root cause of the safety hazard (namely, why the railroad allowed the defective equipment to remain in use), PATH's Superintendent sent her a disciplinary charge letter alleging the injury was solely her fault. A typical "blame the victim and ignore the systemic cause" reaction by rail management that happens every day on railroads across the nation, and is a major reason why safety hazards persist.

But things have changed. The FRSA is in effect now, and with my help Laura stood up for her FRSA right to be protected from such retaliatory action. OSHA conducted a thorough investigation, and found that no one else was charged with any safety violations for allowing the defective equipment to remain in use, and that the Railroad could have investigated the circumstances of the incident without ordering the injured employee to face a disciplinary hearing. OSHA concluded that if Laura had not reported an injury, no charge letter would have been sent.

What is interesting here is that Laura did not actually attend any disciplinary hearing or suffer any discipline. She just received an initial charge letter. And OSHA ruled such conduct is a violation of the FRSA that must be remedied. To make Laura whole, OSHA ordered PATH to expunge her disciplinary records and pay punitive damages and attorney fees. Of particular interest is the empowering NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES the Railroad must post on all of its bulletin boards.

So here's to Laura! By standing up for her FRSA rights she is at the forefront of a grass roots movement of workers acting to correct the imbalance of power between rail labor and management.

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

Here's another example of what happens when a railroad tries to blame an injured worker instead of taking responsibility for the workplace culture that caused the injury in the first place. Declaring "An employer does not have the right to retaliate against its employees who report work-related injuries," OSHA's Whistleblower Office ordered two Illinois railroads to pay over $80,000 in back wages, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees to a former worker who reported an injury and then was subjected to a railroad "investigation" that resulted in his termination. Click here for OSHA's press release, and click here for the full text of the Federal Rail Safety Act that shields employees from such retaliation.

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

Here's a quick look back at some of this year's notable developments in the rail safety world:

March: FRA bans railroad supervisors from medical examining rooms: click here

June: OSHA's Whistleblower Office issues $300,000 in punitive damages against Metro North Railroad for violations of the Federal Rail Safety Act FRSA, setting important precedent: click here

October: Judge confirms FRSA punitive damages apply to publicly owned commuter railroads:click here

November: Judge confirms FRSA prohibits railroads from interfering with the medical treatment plan of employees' treating doctors: click here

November: the first trial in the nation of a FRSA complaint is held in New Haven, Connecticut, against Metro North Railroad (stay tuned for the Judge's decision in early 2010)

And looking forward to 2010, here's hoping:

---for more rulings rejecting rail management's bogus argument that the participation of employees in Railway Labor Act disciplinary proceedings somehow constitutes an "election of remedies" that bars them from the whistleblower protections of the FRSA;

---for judicial rulings establishing that under the FRSA, an employee's treating doctor "trumps" over whatever a railroad manager or medical department may think or want to do;

---to increase the beneficial effect of the FRSA's sister law, the NTSSA (which protects subway system employees who raise safety concerns) by encouraging its application on major subway systems such as New York City Transit and the Washington DC Metro.

Meanwhile, here's wishing everyone a safe and productive new year!

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

Joe Coleman from Seattle asks whether union reps can be present when a worker gives a statement to a railroad claims agent. The real question is, why would a railroad worker NOT have his union rep present?

No way can there be ever be a level playing field between a claim agent and an injured worker. Think about it. A claim agent is a manager whose only job is to save the railroad money. He is a professional trained to ask leading questions that steer the worker into incriminating answers that will insulate the railroad from liability. The injured worker, on the other hand, finds himself suddenly thrust into a bewildering process with no idea how to protect his legal interests.

Always remember, you don't have to give a statement to a claim agent. If a claim agent asks you to come in and give a statement, ask the claim agent if your union rep can be there with you. If the answer is no, that is all the proof of unfairness you need, and just walk away.

Before giving any statement, it is always best to at least consult with an experienced FELA attorney who can advise you how to protect your long term interests. But at the very least, talk to an experienced union rep who can be there to keep the claim agent honest.

So don't be fooled by the "friendly" claim agent who just "wants to help" and, by the way, just needs to take a "short statement on the record" before he will process your medical bills and so on. He will smile and joke and take your statement, and then months or years later when you go to settle your claim, he will pull out your statement and say, "Gee, what do you want from us? You yourself stated it was just an accident that could not have been avoided. You're lucky we even paid your medical bills."

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

 Metro North Railroad's attempt to exempt itself from punitive damages under the Federal Rail Safety Act has failed. In a case of first impression, an ALJ has just ruled that ALL railroads--including publicly owned commuter railroads--are subject to the FRSA's punitive damage remedy. Plus, the ALJ is requiring Metro North Railroad to go through the past 196 injuries it reported to the FRA and produce documents confirming any discipline initated against the employees who reported those injuries. Why? Because when "determining whether punitive damages are warranted . . . prior similar acts may be important in determining whether a wrongdoer's conduct was reprehensible and thus subject to punitive damages." This is a major step forward in ensuring the protection of railroad workers who report injuries or safety concerns. To read the ALJ's detailed and well-reasoned decision, click here, and to see OSHA's earlier ruling regarding my four clients,click here.

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

Rail union rep Joe Coleman from Seattle has a question about the FELA liability of railroads who contract out work. His General Foreman recently hired subcontractors to band freight car loads that had shifted due to broken banding, and when challenged tried to justify it by arguing that since the subcontractors are self-insured, the railroad will save on FELA liability.

It ain't necessarily so. Federal Employers Liability Act liability cannot be contractually waived, 45 U.S.C. 55, and the Supreme Court holds that "non-railroad" employees are nevertheless covered by the FELA if they are (1) a borrowed servant of the railroad, (2) a servant acting for two masters simultaneously, or (3) a subservant of a company that was in turn a servant of the railroad. Kelly v Southern Pacific Co 419 US 318, 324 (1974). When determining whether a person is a borrowed servant or dual servant under the FELA, courts look at several factors: (1) who exercised significant supervisory control over the worker at the time of the injury; (2) who selected the worker; and (3) who paid his or her wages. The overriding consideration is whether the railroad had control of (or the right to control) the worker in the performance of his duties, and where evidence of control of the employee's activities is in dispute, the case must go to a jury. Vanskike v ACF Indus. Inc., 665 F.2d 188, 198 (8th Cir, 1981).

So don't let managers bluff you with such lame justifications for violating your contracting out rules----railroad laws such as the FELA do not disappear merely because a railroad says so. Employees of railroad subcontractors can still sue the railroad under the FELA. And by the way, railroad contractors also are covered by the anti-retaliation provisions of the Federal Rail Safety Act. Under the FRSA, a railroad subcontractor cannot retaliate against its own employees who report safety violations or personal injuries.

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

Talk about sending a message! OSHA has blown the whistle on Metro North Railroad's culture of retaliation. Big time. No longer do railroad workers have to fear reporting an injury or a safety violation. The days when railroad managers could retaliate with impunity are officially over. Every railroad in the country is now on notice that retaliation by managers will lead to punitive damages.

Under the new Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), railroad workers are protected from retaliation when they report any injuries or safety violations. These four workers turned to my railroad law firm for help when Metro North retaliated against them for reporting their railyard injuries: Ralph Tagliatela of West Haven, CT (station custodian), Larry Ellis of the Bronx, NY (car cleaner in GCT) Andy Barati of Waterbury, CT (trackman), and Anthony Santiago of Hopewell Junction, NY (shop electrician). We filed FRSA complaints that have resulted in the following remedies: $75,000 in punitive damages to each employee (total of $300,000); up to $10,000 in compensatory damages (total of $40,000); all lost wages with 6% interest; expungement of discipline records; barring Metro North from using injury sick days or injury reports to bar transfers or promotions; forcing Metro North to give each of its employees a copy of the OSHA Whistleblower Fact Sheet explaining their rights under the FRSA; and attorney's fees. In order to counter the chilling effect of Metro North's past conduct on all employees and to ensure protection from future retaliation, these complainants are posting OSHA's official Merit Findings here in order to show how OSHA enforces the FRSA rights of rail employees: Tagliatela Ellis Barati and Santiago. For the FRSA Fact Sheet click here.

In the first wave of FRSA whistleblower complaints, this group stands out both for the variety of the management retaliation and the strength of OSHA's response. As the railroad lawyer for all four employees, I can attest to the savvy of the OSHA investigator, who promptly launched her investigations and didn't let up until she had a thorough grasp of Metro North's culture of retaliation against employees who report injuries and safety concerns.

OSHA issued a press release that included this statement: "Railroad employees have the right to report occupational injuries and illnesses without fear that doing so will negatively affect their jobs, their health or their income," said Jordan Barab, acting U.S. assistant secretary of labor for safety and health. "Retaliating against employees for exercising this basic, legally protected workplace right is unacceptable."

On Metro North, OSHA's whistleblower investigators quickly ran into the stonewall of an entrenched management culture in which retaliation against employees is expected and rewarded. And Metro North's own conduct in response to the FRSA complaints was the ultimate proof of that problem: Metro North flatly refused to cooperate with OSHA's reasonable demands for documents while asserting ridiculous interpretations of the FRSA's broad remedial language. See this earlier blog entry where I predicted that such stonewalling will result in punitive damages.  These cases prove my point: the shortest distance between a FRSA complaint and a punitive damages award is for railroads to tell OSHA to go pound sand. The only thing that will get pounded is the railroad.

So for railroads across the country, the days of care-free retaliation are over. Refusing to change your ways is not an option. This action by OSHA proves the FRSA has sharp teeth that will shred recalcitrant railroads to pieces, while costing them real money. The message is clear: stop retaliating against employees, or get out your check book.

For more information on how the FRSA protects railroad workers, check out trainlawblog.com and trainlaw.com.

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

The opportunities for railroad supervisors to harass injured workers just keeps getting smaller and smaller. The Federal Railroad Administration has now put a stop to the practice of railroad supervisors accompanying injured employees into medical exam rooms. The FRA issued a Notice of Interpretation declaring it to be a violation of federal regulations for a supervisor to be in a medical exam room with an injured employee (the only exception being if the worker is unconscious or has freely invited the supervisor in). FRA Notice

The FRA requires every railroad to adopt an Internal Control Plan confirming that any harassment or intimidation which discourages employees from reporting injuries will not be tolerated. 49 CFR 225.33(a).  Despite that requirement, the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident Reports acknowledges that many railroad supervisors engage in practices that circumvent the reporting of injuries, including harassing and disciplining employees who report injuries. Go to FRA Guide p.8

One of the ways supervisors try to make an injury non-reportable is to go into the medical exam room where they can pressure the employee or influence the extent of medical treatment. Those days are over. Now, it is a patent violation of FRA anti-harassment regulations "when a railroad supervisor accompanies an injured employee into an examination room." And that is on top of the protection given by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, which prohibits supervisors from interfering with the medical treatment of injured employees. 49 USC 20109

So employees and union reps, now hear this: when supervisors want to go into the examining room, bar the door! And if a supervisor barges in anyway, file a complaint with the FRA for a violation of 49 CFR 225.33(a) and then file a complaint with OSHA's Whistleblower Office for violation of the FRSA, 49 UCS 20109(a)(4) and (c). Under these new railroad laws, the fines, penalties, attorney's fees, and even punitive damages that result will put a stop to that particular form of railroad intimidation.

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

Need more proof that retaliation doesn't pay? Check out this scenario. Workers raise safety concerns with their carrier and OSHA. Carrier files a defamation lawsuit against the workers. Workers file Whistleblower complaint with OSHA. OSHA investigation finds lawsuit was in retaliation for the workers' protected activity, and PRESTO! the carrier has to pay $7.8 million in compensation and attorneys fees.

And to top it off, OSHA orders the carrier to withdraw the lawsuit and give all its employees notice of their Whistleblower rights. Read about it here. The carrier this time happened to be an airline, but the same scenario would apply to a railroad carrier arrogant enough to do the same to its workers. And we all know there is no dearth of arrogant railroad managers out there who think they have a license to retaliate against employees who dare to raise safety and injury concerns. So get ready for a flurry of tough orders against rail carriers, now that the first wave of OSHA investigations under the relatively new Federal Railroad Safety Act are coming to a head.

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

Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Metro-North Railroad worker Kevin McGrath, whose life came to an end on the tracks just west of Rye Station while he was on duty January 9th. Just as every human life is unique, each fatal railroad accident like this is uniquely tragic. 

As Kenny's family, friends, and co-workers celebrate his life and mourn his loss, they cannot help but ask themselves, "Why? What went wrong? How could this possibly happen to an experienced 25 year Railroad veteran?" It is only human to try to make sense out of such a tragedy by asking such questions. But if experience is any guide, the full truth as to what really happened will not emerge until long after the period of initial shock and grieving. 

From my point of view as a railroad accident FELA lawyer, at times like this I am always struck by the disconnect between the superficial news reports in the media and the complex depths of the true story. One article from the Connecticut Post is typical.  Click here for article. It gives the bare known facts, and then refers to two earlier Metro North railroad accident worker fatalities, both of which were FELA cases handled by my firm. The Robert Ard, Jr. case is instructive. After Bob was killed by a Metro North train in Stamford Yard, Metro North Railroad management issued a Report placing all the blame on him, a conclusion other law firms endorsed when declining to help his wife and two daughters. Of course Bob could not speak for himself, but by aggressively using the tools of federal court discovery we were able to uncover the truth: the underlying cause of Bob's death was in fact Metro North's failure to follow its own failsafe procedures for safe switching operations. After a two week federal court trial, the jury rejected Metro North's "blame the victim" defense and returned a gross verdict of $4.3 million for Bob's wife and daughters.  For information on the Ard verdict, click here and here.  

As the Ard case illustrates, the full truth will not emerge even when the Railroad conducts its own investigation and issues its Report. Indeed, it is likely Metro North's Report actually will avoid or obscure the truth as to what really happened and why. It takes time and hard work, but the truth as to what really happened can and must be discovered, if only to provide closure for Kevin McGrath's loved ones and to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

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

 The FRSA (Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 USC 20109) just keeps getting better and better. The FRSA is now amended to provide that:

A railroad may not deny, delay, or interfere with the medical treatment of an employee who is injured during the course of employment. In particular, a railroad may not discipline or threaten to discipline an employee for following the orders or treatment plan of a treating physician. (The full text of this amendment is available after the jump).

This is a fundamental shift in the balance of power between rail management and rail labor. Think about it. Up to now, whenever an employee reports a FELA on-the-job injury, railroads like Metro North, LIRR, New Jersey Transit, Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad, and Amtrak order the injured employee to travel long distances to the railroad's medical facility, even if such travel violates the treatment plan of the employee's treating doctors. Once there, the employee is given a perfunctory lookover by a non-physician and sent back home. This is a form of harassment designed to discourage employees from reporting injuries in the first place. And if the employee follows his doctor's orders and stays home, the railroad charges the employee with insubordination and disciplines him, up to and including firing.

Here's a recent example. True story, I'm not making this up. An injured employee in Connecticut was ordered to report immediately to the Metro North medical facility in Grand Central Terminal. His treating doctor faxed down a note confirming that his patient required three days of bed rest. Metro North refused to accept the note because, and I quote, "It doesn't say that you can't travel on a train" (apparently Metro North now allows beds in its commuter trains). Metro North told the employee he is not excused from the appointment and "You will be disciplined if up don't show up."

Well, railroads can no longer play that game. The FRSA now prohibits a railroad from disciplining an employee for following the orders or treatment plan of his treating doctor. So when an employee has a note from his doctor stating he can not travel, the railroad can not force him to travel to its medical facility. Or if the treating doctor says no light duty, the railroad can not force the employee to work light duty. Or if the treating doctor says his patient needs more treatment before returning to work, the railroad can not force him back to work. 

Another form of abuse is when railroads routinely "deny, delay, and interfere with an injured employee's medical treatment" by arbitrarily declaring his on-the-job injury "non-occupational." This means the railroad will not pay for the medical treatment prescribed by the employee's treating doctor. This forces the employee to try to have his regular medical insurance pay for his treatment, but such insurance is not supposed to cover on-the-job injury medical expenses. Many medical insurance plans limit the doctors you can see, and all require various out-of-pocket co-payments. As a result, this inevitably denies, delays, or interferes with the employee's medical treatment. And the railroad improperly evades payment of the medical expenses by placing it on the backs of the insurance company and the employee.

Metro North Railroad is notorious for this abuse, and in fact the Metro North Labor Council has been investigating this arguably fraudulent conduct by the Railroad for some time. Now, railroads like Metro North will be sued under the FRSA whenever they declare an on-the-job FELA injury to be "non-occupational," with the prospect of punitive damages up to $250,000 for each occurrence.

There is more to this powerful amendment to the FRSA (keep tuned, details to follow). But one thing is clear: in the eternal struggle between rail labor and management, the balance of power has now shifted over to labor's side when it comes to controlling the course of an employee's medical treatment. Start spreading the word so labor can enforce its new won rights to the fullest extent allowed by law. 

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

Last month, the first reported Order imposing punitive damages against a railroad for violating the FRSA anti-retaliation law came to light. It concerned retaliatory conduct by Amtrak in Seattle, but the OSHA Whistleblower Office Press Release announcing the Order provided few details about what actually happened.

Well, my curiosity was piqued. I managed to get my hands on OSHA's Findings and Final Investigation Report, and the details are very telling.

The employee was working in the King Street Station in Seattle. In the rail yard north of Holgate Street she stepped off a platform onto a parking area that was not properly maintained (potholes, uneven ground, rocks) and twisted her left ankle on a rock. She reported the injury to her supervisor, who saw her swollen ankle, and she booked off injured. Amtrak immediately charged her with violating the usual vague all-encompassing "safety" rules (including Amtrak's "Standards of Excellence," whatever that is), and held a disciplinary hearing. Initially she was fired, but that was reduced to a 30 day suspension without pay.

The employee filed a FRSA retaliation complaint, and OSHA Whistleblower's office investigated. OSHA found Amtrak's managers had "a mind-set that employees are always at fault when they are injured on the job" and "engaged in intimidation by assessing severe punishment against employees who report injuries, which sends a chilling effect to all employees not to report injuries for fear of losing their employment." OSHA ordered Amtrak: to pay the employee her back wages along with punitive damages; to expunge the discipline from her file; and to not retaliate or discriminate against her in any manner in the future.

To me, the most remarkable thing about this case is how typical the scenario is: an employee reports a FELA on-the-job injury, and the railroad reacts by filing bogus disciplinary charges against the employee. This happens every day on railroads all over the country. The fact punitive damages were ordered for such a common situation bodes ill for railroads like Metro North, the LIRR, NJ Transit, MBCR, Amtrak, and CSX where the management culture encourages such knee jerk disciplinary retaliation against employees who report injuries. The FRSA is designed to change that culture by enforcing the free and unfettered reporting of injuries. And punitive damages are the hammer that will force such a cultural change. So railroad managers beware: you now are on notice that trying to discipline an employee who reports a railroad injury will put you squarely in the crosshairs of a FRSA punitive damage action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the saying goes, knowledge is power. Here's an amazing new law that every rail worker should know about. The Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 20109, hands employees a shield and a sword to fight back against rail managers who heretofore have retaliated against workers with impunity.

The FRSA prohibits retaliation whenever employees engage in certain "protected activity." For example, when a worker reports an on-the-job injury or occupational illness, the railroad is now prohibited from discrimination or retaliating in any way against that worker. Now, if an employee reports his own or a co-workers on-the-job injury and then his railroad disciplines, reprimands, fires, lays off, demotes, intimidates, denies promotion or benefits, or in any other way retaliates against that employee, the employee can file a complaint with OSHA that ultimately can lead to a federal court jury award making the employee whole and awarding punitive damages of up to $250,000.

This is the first time that rail workers have had the potential to win punitive damages against their employer railroad. Punitive damages are designed to "send a message" to a defendants by punishing them for a pattern of unaccepatable conduct. When a railroad retaliates against employees who report injuries on a system-wide basis, this new FRSA law allows juries to impose punitive damages that will discourage the railroad from continuing its course of retaliatory conduct.

There is a very short window of days within which employees can file their initial OSHA complaint: 180 days from the time the railroad indicates a desire or intent to discipline the employee. For example, this means 180 days from the date a railroad notifies a worker that it will be conducting a disciplinary hearing or trial. Failure to file the OSHA complaint within that 180 days is fatal to the worker's claim.

When an employee invokes this new law, it is as if he dons a suit of armor against any future retaliation. It protects him against any future attempt by his railroad supervisors or managers to get back at him for filing the complaint. And his co-workers who talk to OSHA about the complaint also gain the same suit of armor protecting them from such future retaliation. This is true even if the original OSHA complaint does not result in any formal action against the railroad. It is true even if the worker's injury does not qualify as a FELA injury. So this really is a game changing law that helps level the playing field for rail workers, and every employee should be familiar with it.

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