The Source for Railroad Injuries & Whistleblower Protection
Important developments in the Federal Rail Safety Act just keep coming. Here are a couple.
OSHA has issued another punitive damages award against Metro North Railroad, this time for harassing an injured employee by interfering with his medical treatment and recovery. The Finding in Cortese v. Metro North Railroad is especially notable because it recognizes…
Two new landmarks have appeared in the Federal Rail Safety Act landscape, one erected by a federal court jury and the other by OSHA’s top policy makers. Last week’s $1 million punitive damages jury award for my client is indeed historic, but should not overshadow a recent seminal Memo by OSHA of equal importance.
The…
Yesterday, at the end of the first Federal Rail Safety Act jury trial in the nation, I asked the federal jury to send a message to every railroad in the country. An unmistakable message that singling out injured workers for discipline while ignoring management’s role will not be tolerated. An unmistakable message that rail management’s…
In a major decision clarifying the scope of the Federal Rail Safety Act, OSHA confirms that a railroad’s denial, delay, or interference with an injured employee’s medical treatment constitutes adverse action recoverable under FRSA Section (a)(4). Section (a)(4) protects employees from adverse action due to the reporting of a work-related injury, and OSHA now…
In an encouraging sign to whistleblowers, the Department of Labor has elevated the status of its Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program (OWPP) so it now reports directly to the Head of OSHA, Assistant Secretary Dr. David Michaels. This puts whistleblower protection on an equal footing with OSHA’s health and safety enforcement, and increases the…
WARNING UPDATE: see the 3rd Circuit’s decision in PATH v. U.S. DOL.
Any rail worker absence ordered by a treating doctor can no longer be used for attendance discipline purposes. That is the message of a ground-breaking decision interpreting the scope of FRSA protected medical treatment.
Subsection (c)(2) of the FRSA prohibits railroads from…
The burden of proof applicable to a Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower protection case is markedly different from a Title VII discrimination case. And much more favorable to the employee.
Title VII cases have a three step burden of proof: the employee establishes a prima facie case, the employer raises a non-discriminatory reason, and then…
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.…
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).
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,…