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. Dist. LEXIS 90798 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2015).
Subsection (a)(4) reporting of a work-related injury.
Close temporal proximity alone is sufficient to satisfy the contributing factor element, following Araujo v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 708 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2013), Davis v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2014 WL 3499228 (W.D.La. July 14, 2014), and Ray v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 971 F.Supp.2d 869 (D.Iowa 2013).
Good faith reporting standard, and inextricably intertwined
Mosby v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 2015 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 93869 (E.D.Ok July 20, 2015).
Subsection (a)(4) reporting of a work-related injury.
Denied summary judgment, endorsing the good faith reporting standard applied in Ray v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 971 F.Supp.2d 869, 883-84 (D.Iowa 2013) (“even assuming that the Plaintiff employee was dishonest with the Railroad on one occasion or another, the relevant inquiry remains whether, at the time he reported his injury to the Railroad, he genuinely believed the injury he was reporting was work-related.”), and denying summary judgment regarding the contributing factor element based on the fact the adverse action was inextricably intertwined with the reporting of the work-related injury.
Miller V. CSX Transp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112507 (S.D. Ohio August 25, 2015).
Subsection (a)(4) reporting of work-related injury.
Denied summary judgment, applying the good faith reporting standard of Ray, Murphy, and Koziara v. BNSF Railroad Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2382 (W.D. Wisc. January 9, 2015).
Clear and Convincing Evidence
Gunderson v. BNSF Railway Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99046 (D. Minn. July 28, 2015).
Subsection (a)(4) reporting work related injury and (b)(1)(A) raising safety concerns.
Granted summary judgment based on clear and convincing evidence that the employee’s violation of Railroad’s workplace violence policy would have resulted in his termination in the absence of his unrelated protected activity.
Jauhola v. Wis. Cent., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109930 (D.Minn. August 20, 2015).
Subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2) safety complaints, and (b)(1)(A) reporting safety hazards.
Granted summary judgment based on clear and convincing evidence that the employee’s release of track authority while a crew was still on the track would have resulted in his termination in the absence of his unrelated protected activity.
Refusal to work
Stokes v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115161 (E.D. Pa. August 26, 2015).
Subsection (b)(1)(B) refusal to work.
Granted motion to dismiss for failure to plead facts sufficient to support a Subsection (b)(1)(B) refusal to work when confronted by a hazardous safety condition presenting an imminent danger of death or serious injury.