The Source for Railroad Injuries & Whistleblower Protection
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 the landmark decision of Santiago v. Metro North Railroad, the Administrative Review Board held that Federal Rail Safety Act “Section 20109(c)(1) bars a railroad from denying, delaying, or interfering with an employee’s medical treatment throughout the period of treatment and recovery from a work injury.” The Administrative Review Board also held that a…
Here are some “need to know” developments affecting Federal Rail Safety Act Section 20109 railroad whistleblower retaliation matters.
New Rules of Practice For ALJ Trials
As of June 18, 2015, a new set of Rules of Practice and Procedure will apply to the trial of whistleblower cases before U.S. DOL Administrative Law Judges. An increasing…
In 2007, Congress passed a law designed to change the profoundly unsafe workplace culture on our nation’s railroads: Section 20109 of the Federal Rail Safety Act. Eight years later, the concerted action of OSHA, judges, and juries have forced the railroads to move beyond denial and anger to a grudging acceptance of the fact…
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…
Every day, the operations of our nation’s railroads place at risk the safety of countless passengers, employees, drivers at crossings, contractors along the tracks, and the homes, schools, and work places in communities through which trains carry toxic and explosive materials. If a railroad worker is suffering from a medical condition rendering him fatigued, unable…
Federal Rail Safety Act Subsection c(2) prohibits railroads from disciplining employees “for following the orders or treatment plan of a treating physician.” For the past six years, the U.S. Department of Labor has interpreted the scope of c(2) protection to include off duty injuries and medical conditions as well as on duty injuries: see the…
In recent Federal Rail Safety Act developments, the 8th Circuit tries its hand at Section 20109 model jury instructions, and the Administrative Review Board underscores some key points of proof.
Jury Instructions
In addition to the battle tested Section 20109 jury instructions in Barati v. Metro North Railroad and Brig v. PATH, the 8th…
In a warning to over-reaching defense attorneys, an Administrative Law Judge has refused to approve a proposed whistleblower retaliation settlement agreement because it “is so overbroad as to contravene public policy.”
The Agreement attempted to release “both corporate and individual respondents of all claims known and unknown of any and every kind,” and included a…
A federal judge has confirmed the principle that “adverse action” prohibited by the Federal Railroad Safety Act is any action that would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in FRSA protected activities (such as reporting injuries or safety hazards or following a treating doctor’s orders). It is not limited to the actual imposition of discipline,…