The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Murray v. UBS eliminates the use of “intentional retaliation” to defeat Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower cases. But Murray does much more than that. By clarifying the FRSA’s two step burden of proof, it serves as a road map for winning “late” or “false” injury report FRSA cases. Here’s
Charlie Goetsch
Contact:Read more about Charlie Goetsch
Spotlight on Maritime Whistleblowers
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Seaman's Protection Act
Just as the FRSA protects rail workers who report safety hazards, the Seaman’s Protection Act (SPA) protects mariners who report safety issues directly to the U.S. Coast Guard. But the American division of the Maersk international shipping conglomerate prohibits seaman from reporting safety concerns to the U.S. Coast Guard without first reporting internally. In…
The Death of “Intentional Retaliation”
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court today put an end to the bogus idea that whistleblower employees have to prove “intentional retaliation.”
The question in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC was whether whistleblower protection statutes such as the Federal Rail Safety Act require employees to prove “intentional retaliation” in addition to the…
The End of “Intentional Retaliation”
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act, FELA Injuries
After today’s oral argument at the U. S. Supreme Court, the concept of “intentional retaliation” in whistleblower cases is on life support, and I predict that in a few short months the Supreme Court will pull the plug on it for good.
The Federal Rail Safety Act and statutes like it specify a two-step burden…
A Landmark Seaman’s Protection Act Development
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Seaman's Protection Act
Just as the FRSA does on the railroad, the Seaman’s Protection Act (SPA) protects workers in the maritime shipping industry who report safety hazards. But there are only a handful of SPA whistleblower cases. Why the dearth of such cases?
The answer lies in the culture of the maritime industry, and in particular carrier policies…
Another Circuit Holds Subjective Belief Alone Is Enough
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
The FRSA protects employees from retaliation for “reporting, in good faith, a hazardous safety condition.” In a recent landmark decision, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that such good faith only requires proof of a subjective belief, and rail workers do not have to prove both a subjective and objective basis for believing a…
Transportation Infrastructure Fraud Whistleblowing
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in False Claims Act fraud
By now most rail industry union reps and attorneys know there are federal statutes protecting railroad and mass transit employees from whistleblower retaliation. But there is another special federal law that allows such workers to reap multimillion dollar bounties.
The name of that statute is the False Claims Act (FCA). The purpose of the False…
FRSA Alert! Landmark Decision Clarifies Good Faith Safety Reporting
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
The FRSA protects employees from retaliation for “reporting, in good faith, a hazardous safety or security condition.” But what exactly does that mean? In a case of first impression for the Circuit Courts, the Second Circuit analyzes the plain meaning of that statutory language and concludes:
we hold that a railroad employee engages in protected
…
What Is Clear and Convincing Evidence?
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
When a rail worker proves that his or her FRSA protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse personnel action, the railroad may nevertheless avoid liability if it proves by “clear and convincing evidence” that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the protected activity. The burden of proof…
When Reporting a Worker’s Illness Is Protected From Discipline
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
Under the FRSA, it is protected activity to report a “hazardous safety condition.” Whether a worker’s own illness or personal impairment is such a hazardous condition has been a matter of dispute. But now the Administrative Review Board confirms that a rail worker’s illness can constitute a hazardous condition, the reporting of which cannot be…