Federal Rail Safety Act Section 20109(a)(4) protects rail workers who notify their railroad of “a work-related personal injury or work-related illness.” Injuries usually are pretty obvious. But what qualifies as “a work related illness”? The federal court in Williams v. Ill. Cent. R.R. holds that any illness arising during the course of employment is included, not just illnesses caused by the conditions of an employee’s railroad work.
Marcus Williams was a locomotive engineer who experienced what he believed were heart attack symptoms while at work and asked to be taken to the hospital. He was given a note to take off the next work day, and did so. The Railroad used that absence to fire him for violating its attendance policy. When Williams filed a FRSA complaint, the Railroad raised several arguments, all rejected by the federal judge.
First, the Railroad sought ” a bright-line rule that persons who experience a heart attack at work do not qualify for protections of the FRSA until an expert testifies that the heart attack was caused by work conditions.” But the judge rejected that narrow interpretation of subsection (a)(4).
Second, the Railroad argued Williams was not protected because he did not fill out the Railroad’s injury report form. The judge rejected that as well: “The FRSA does not require employees to follow any particular reporting regime.” This is undoubtedly correct, as the statutory language of (a)(4) reads: “to notify, or attempt to notify, the railroad” of a work-related injury or illness. Mere notification is sufficient, not the filling of any railroad injury report form. And indeed, subsection (h) confirms the FRSA rights of employees “may not be waived by any form or condition of employment.”
Third, the judge rejected the Railroad’s reading of the Third Circuit’s PATH decision that, to be protected, an injury or illness must be “caused by work conditions.” The judge noted
The PATH Court concluded that “Congress intended the entirety of subsection 20109(c) to apply only when an employee sustains an injury during the course of employment.” . . . The Third Circuit nowhere indicated that an “on duty injury” or “work-related injury” meant anything more than that the injury must have occurred while the plaintiff was working.
Finally, regarding Illinois Central’s “clear and convincing evidence” defense that it fired Williams for violating the attendance policy “without regard to the reason for the absence, “the judge responded: “But that is exactly the problem. . . . If an employee is following doctor’s orders to stay at home, as in this case, his railroad should not classify the absence as a violation of attendance guidelines.”