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

We know the closer in time between a protected activity and an adverse action, the more powerful is the inference the protected activity was a contributing factor to the adverse action. Indeed, where the protected act and the retaliation occur in quick succession, the inference is overwhelming.

But the opposite is true: the further the

When BNSF track inspector Brandon Fresquez refused to falsify reports of track defect repairs, he was terminated for insubordination. In another example of the transformative power of the FRSA, a federal jury and judge have ordered BNSF Railway to pay Fresquez $1.74 million, including $800,000 in emotional distress, $250,000 in punitive damages, and $696,173 in

A recent decision from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board holds, in a case of first impression, that the National Transit Systems Security Act (NTSSA), 6 U.S.C. Section 1142, “provides subway employees protection against retaliation for raising concerns relating to workplace safety, as well as public safety.”

In Janathan Harte v. Metropolitan Transportation