Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) is supposed to investigate and remedy retaliation against employees who blow the whistle on contractor fraud or safety hazards. But in a ruling that raises serious questions about Amtrak’s commitment to whistle blower protection, OSHA has found Amtrak terminated one of its own OIG Supervisors for raising concerns about contractor fraud and safety. That Supervisory Special Agent is my client, Michael DeJoseph. OSHA has ordered Amtrak to immediately reinstate him and pay him over $900,000 in damages.
Michael’s long career in law enforcement is impressive. A graduate of the Connecticut State Police Academy and the FBI National Academy, he served 29 years on the Newtown Connecticut Police Department, retiring as Chief of Police. He then joined Amtrak’s OIG, where for ten years he was Supervisory Special Agent-in-Charge of the NYC and Boston offices, overseeing sensitive investigations into allegations of fraud and mismanagement by high level Amtrak management.
The trouble began when Michael discovered that ten concrete inspectors who certified the concrete used on Amtrak’s East River Tunnel projects were not actually certified to inspect concrete, and that Amtrak had been paying invoices based on the testing of those non-credentialed inspectors. Such fraudulent concrete testing posed obvious risks to the safety of Amtrak’s passengers using those tunnels, and Michael pressed ahead with his investigation. But when he issued a subpoena for more information, Amtrak’s Deputy Inspector for Investigations intervened and shut down the investigation. That Deputy Inspector then issued the first negative review in Michael’s career, eliminated his Supervisory position, and terminated him after claiming he was “not qualified” to be rehired as a Special Agent.
OSHA found OIG’s “not qualified” claim was a pretext to retaliate against Michael for raising fraud and safety concerns related to the uncertified inspections of Amtrak’s tunnel concrete. OSHA ordered Amtrak to immediately reinstate Michael into his former Supervisory position and pay him $892,550 in wages, interest, emotional distress, and punitive damages. With attorney fees the total is well over $900,000. Here is the full Merit Finding in Michael DeJoseph v. NRPC. And here is OSHA’s Press Release and Twitter post.
The take away? All railroad employees and managers must know that the Federal Rail Safety Act will protect them when they raise concerns over contractor fraud or safety. This is especially important going forward, given the billions of dollars in transportation infrastructure projects sure to flow from federal and state governments in the near future. Fraud by contractors working on tunnel, bridge, highway, and railroad infrastructure projects must not be tolerated. And anyone with knowledge of such fraud should know they may be entitled to rewards in the millions of dollars if they follow the special provisions of the False Claims Act (which requires the filing of a complaint under a seal of secrecy). Here is more on whistleblower awards under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. For more on the rights of railroad whistleblowers, go to the free Rail Whistleblower Library.
In a major decision with national implications, the Administrative Review Board confirms that Federal Rail Safety Act subsection (c)(2) does indeed protect treatments for non-work related medical conditions. Williams v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad. In so doing, the ARB explicitly rejects the 3rd Circuit’s holding in Bala v. PATH, which imposed a work related limitation on the scope of (c)(2) protection. The result is that in every Circuit other than the 3rd, it now is the official position of the Department of Labor that (c)(2) protects employees who follow their treating doctor’s orders for a non work related medical condition.
The plain language of subsection (c)(2) states: “A railroad may not discipline or threaten to discipline employees for following the orders or treatment plan of a treating physician.” Congress did not include any work-related limitation, and the ARB explained why the 3rd Circuit’s imposition of a work-related limitation is “counter to the intent of Congress”:
the express language set out in Sections 20109(c)(1) and (2), as well as the legislative history, makes it clear that Congress did not intend to foreclose protection from railroad workers who were following a physician’s treatment plan for a non-work-related condition or injury.
Because there is no rule of intercircuit stare decisis, federal agencies are not bound by the decision of a circuit court in litigation arising in other circuits. Thus, we decline to apply the holding in PATH to cases not arising in the Third Circuit.
The wrong headedness of the 3rd Circuit’s Bala “work related” limitation has become glaringly obvious in light of the recent string of deadly derailments related to the untreated medical conditions of locomotive engineers. Situational awareness must be maintained at all times, and no one wants an employee in an unsafe condition to perform safety sensitive railroad work. When an employee follows his doctor’s orders not to work in an unsafe condition, that absence must be encouraged and protected. Period.
Bottom line? The ARB has given a green light to workers in all the other circuits to press complaints with OSHA and Administrative Law Judges when railroads discipline them for following the orders of their treating doctors, regardless of whether the medical condition is work or non-work related. Here is the complete text of Williams v. Grand Trunk Western  Railroad Company. For more information on FRSA Section 20109, go to the free Rail Whistleblower Library.
Recognizing it’s hard to blow the whistle once you’ve been gagged, OSHA has issued new guidelines prohibiting the use of gag and confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements. See Policy Guidelines for Approving Settlement Agreements in Whistleblower Cases.
OSHA reviews settlement agreements between whistleblowers and their employers “to ensure they are fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the pubic interest, and that the employee’s consent was knowing and voluntary.” OSHA now updates “the criteria that OSHA will use to evaluate whether a settlement impermissibly restricts or discourages protected activity.”
OSHA confirms it will not approve any gag or confidentiality provision that “prohibits, restricts, or otherwise discourages an employee from participating in protected activity.” Such protected activity includes but is not limited to providing information to the government, filing a complaint with a governmental agency, participating in an investigation, or testifying in proceedings regarding an employee’s past or future conduct.
Any provision that restricts such activity is prohibited, as is any provision that requires an employee to notify his employer before filing a complaint or communicating with the government regarding the employee’s past or future conduct. And even adding the phrase “except as provided by law” to a confidentiality clause will not spare it from deletion by OSHA.
The take away? Railroad attorneys should not even think about gagging employees with confidentiality clauses, because OSHA will rip off the gag every time. Here is the full OSHA Policy Guidelines for Approving Whistleblower Settlements. For more information on the whistleblower rights of railroad workers, go to the free Rail Whistleblower Library.
The Administrative Review Board has handed down an important punitive damages decision that also shows how to eliminate a railroad’s affirmative defense. In Jason Raye v. Pan Am Railways, Inc., the Railroad charged the employee with making false statements in a Federal Rail Safety Act complaint filed with OSHA. Although Raye was never actually disciplined and lost no wages, the ALJ awarded him the statutory maximum of $250,000 in punitive damages. Here are the highlights:
How To Eliminate a Railroad’s Affirmative Defense
The ARB stressed that once an employee shows his protected activity contributed in whole or in part to the adverse action,
to avoid liability the railroad must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action absent the employee’s protected activity. . . .Clear and convincing evidence is evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.
This means that
The lack of credible explanations from the employer makes the ALJ’s finding of causation that much stronger and effectively eliminates the employer’s ability to establish an affirmative defense.
Thus, all an employee need do to eliminate the railroad’s defense is to expose the falsity of the railroad’s explanation or demonstrate the lack of credible evidence supporting it.
When Punitive Damages Are Warranted
The ARB follows the United States Supreme Court’s standard for when an employer’s conduct triggers a punitive damages award, namely
where there has been reckless or callous disregard for the plaintiff’s rights, as well as intentional violations of federal law. The inquiry into whether punitive damages are warranted focuses on the employer’s state of mind, and thus does not require that the employer’s misconduct be egregious or outrageous.
The “requisite state of mind” is confirmed when a railroad consciously disregards an employee’s FRSA protected rights or intentionally interferes with the exercise of those rights. And although egregious or outrageous conduct by a railroad is not necessary to establish the requisite state of mind, its presence certainly supports an inference of the requisite state of mind.
The Amount of Punitive Damages
The ARB notes the purpose of punitive damages is to punish employer conduct that “calls for deterrence and punishment.” The amount to accomplish that purpose is up to the Judge’s discretion:
Punitive damages are not awarded as of right upon a finding of the requisite state of mind; rather, the question of whether to award punitive damages is in the ALJ’s discretion. . . . An ALJ’s task after determining that an award of punitive damages would be appropriate is to determine the amount necessary for punishment and deterrence, which is “a discretionary moral judgment.”
Finally, the ARB stresses that the FRSA’s “statutory limit on punitive damage awards” eases “any reluctance to award punitive damages where minimal or no compensatory damages have been awarded.”
In other words, it is perfectly appropriate to award the maximum statutory limit of $250,000 even in cases with little or no economic damages. And that was the case in Raye: Jason Raye was not actually disciplined and had no lost wages, yet the ARB upheld an award of $250,000 in punitive damages to punish the Railroad’s conduct and “to deter similar conduct in the future.”
Here is the full Decision in Raye v. Pan Am Railways, Inc. For more information on the whistleblower rights of railroad workers, go to the free Rail Whistleblower Library.
Most subway and bus workers probably don’t know it, but there is a federal law that protects them from any retaliation for reporting safety hazards in their workplace. It’s called the National Transit Systems Security Act, or NTSSA, and is a twin brother to the better known Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower law protecting railroad workers. There have been very few decisions under the NTSSA, no doubt due to a pervasive culture of intimidation and retaliation that discourages whistleblowing by subway and bus workers. But that may change, given a landmark decision confirming the broad scope of the NTSSA, Janathan Harte v. New York City Transit Authority.
The NTSSA prohibits any public transportation agency from firing, demoting, suspending, reprimanding, or discriminating “in any other way against” employees for:
  • reporting a hazardous safety or security condition
  • refusing to violate or assist in violating any federal law, rule, or regulation relating to public transportation safety or security
  • providing information to any investigation regarding violations of any federal law, rule, or regulation relating to public transportation safety or security
  • providing information regarding the fraud or waste of public funds relating to public transportation safety or security
  • refusing to work when confronted by a hazardous safety or security condition related to performance of their duties, under certain conditions
The text of the NTSSA clearly protects employees where ever they work, but for the past nine years the largest subway system in the nation, the New York City Transit Authority, has pretended the NTSSA only applies to terrorist activity at passenger locations such as platforms and stations, and not to the shops and tracks where employees work. That dangerous fantasy is now exploded. A federal Administrative Law Judge has definitively declared that the scope of the NTSSA is not limited to terrorism but also includes employee work places, and thus employee “reporting of hazards that present a threat to employee safety” is protected activity under the NTSSA.
Janathan Harte worked at the NYCTA’s Linden Shop. After his internal complaints of safety hazards were ignored, he reported the hazards to PESH, the New York state agency that enforces OSHA standards in NYCTA work places. Two PESH inspectors then conducted a surprise inspection of the Shop. Harte and the Superintendent of the Shop accompanied them. When the inspectors came upon a drill press with no safety guards on it, they asked the Superintendent if the press was operational. The Superintendent said no, but Harte then walked over and turned on the machine, saying his co-workers do in fact use it. The Superintendent immediately blew up and threatened to take Harte off the overtime list and reassign him to “the rack.” After being warned by the PESH inspectors he could not retaliate against Harte, the Superintendent did not actually alter Harte’s overtime or job assignment. But the next day the Superintendent told Harte’s supervisors Harte was to blame for all the disruption resulting from the remedial actions PESH required after the inspection.
The issue at trial was, did the NTSSA extend to employee work places, and did the Superintendent’s threats constitute prohibited adverse action? After hearing all the evidence, the Judge ruled the NTSSA does indeed protect employee work areas such as shops, and that “a standalone threat, without a tangible loss of benefits, is sufficient to constitute an adverse action” under the NTSSA.
The NTSSA prohibits any adverse actions related to a protected activity such as reporting safety hazards, and a supervisor’s threats to alter the terms of an employee’s employment (wages, job assignments, etc) are adverse even if the threat is not carried out. This is because, given “the power imbalance that comes with the supervisor-subordinate relationship,” such threats “could reasonably dissuade workers from exercising their whistleblower rights.”  Accordingly, the Judge ruled the NYCTA did indeed violate Janathan Harte’s NTSSA right to report safety hazards, and awarded him damages.
The NTSSA is a very powerful law with the following “make whole” remedies:
  • an order voiding any retaliatory discipline
  • an order reinstating the worker with benefits and seniority unimpaired
  • an award of full back pay with interest
  • an award for any out of pocket expenses resulting from the retaliation
  • an award for emotional distress
  • a punitive damages award up to $250,000
  • an award for the attorney’s fees and costs of the worker’s own attorney
So, the message to subway and bus workers everywhere is, take Harte! Know that you have the right to report safety hazards in your workplace and that you will be protected from retaliation when you do. Don’t let any reluctance to blow the whistle on safety hazards endanger the lives of your co-workers or the public. Do the right thing, and you will be protected. Here is the full Harte v. New York City Transit Authority Decision. For more on the standards that apply to subway and bus whistleblowers, go to the free Rail Whistleblower Library.
In a major en banc decision, the Administrative Review Board clarifies the burdens of proof applicable to ALJ whistleblower trials and explains how to apply that standard. Palmer v. Canadian National Railway. This is a must read decision for anyone interested in Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower matters, but here are some of the highlights:
Proof of the Contributory Factor Element
 the first step of the AIR-21 whistleblower protection provision’s burden-of-proof framework requires the complainant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action. It further concludes that there are no limitations on the evidence the fact finder may consider in making that determination, and where the employer’s theory of the case is that protected activity played no role whatsoever in the adverse action, the ALJ must consider the employer’s evidence of its non-retaliatory reasons in order to determine whether protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action.
However, the level of causation that a complainant needs to show contributing factor is extremely low: the protected activity need only be a “contributing factor” in the adverse action. Because of this low level, ALJs should not engage in any comparison of the relative importance of the protected activity and the employer’s non-retaliatory reasons. Since in most cases the employer’s theory of the facts will be that the protected activity played no role in the adverse action, the ALJ must consider the employer’s non-retaliatory reasons, but only to determine whether the protected activity played any role at all.
We have said it many a time before, but we cannot say it enough: A contributing factor is ‘any factor, which alone or in combination with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision.’ We want to reemphasize how low the standard is for the employee to meet, how broad and forgiving it is. Any factor really means any factor. It need not be significant, motivating, substantial or predominant, it just needs to be a factor. The protected activity need only play some role, and even an [in]significant or [in]substantial role suffices.
Importantly, if the ALJ believes that the protected activity and the employer’s non-retaliatory reasons both played a role, the analysis is over and the employee prevails on the contributing-factor question. Thus, consideration of the employer’s non-retaliatory reasons at step one will effectively be premised on the employer pressing the factual theory that non-retaliatory reasons were the only reasons for its adverse action. Since the employee need only show that the retaliation played some role, the employee necessarily prevails at step one if there was more than one reason and one of those reasons was the protected activity.
We cannot emphasize enough the importance of the ALJ’s role here: it is to find facts. The ALJ must consider all the relevant, admissible evidence and make a factual determination, under the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, about what happened: is it more likely than not that the employee’s protected activity played a role, any role whatsoever, in the adverse personnel action? If yes, the employee prevails at step one; if no, the employer prevails at step one. If there is a factual dispute on this question, as is usually the case, the ALJ must sift through the evidence and make a factual determination. This requires the ALJ to articulate clearly what facts he or she found and the specific evidence in the record that persuaded the ALJ of those facts.
Proof of Railroad’s Affirmative Defense
 The second step involves a hypothetical question about what would have happened if the employee had not engaged in the protected activity: in the absence of the protected activity, would the employer nonetheless have taken the same adverse action anyway? On that question, the employer has the burden of proof, and the standard of proof is by clear and convincing evidence. For the ALJ to rule for the employer at step two, the ALJ must be persuaded, based on a review of all the relevant, admissible evidence, that it is highly probable that the employer would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the protected activity. . . . It is not enough for the employer to show that it could have taken the same action; it must show that it would have.
The ARB’s full Decision is at Palmer v. Canadian National Railway. For more information on the whistleblower rights of railroad workers, go to the free Rail Whistleblower Library.
Under the Seaman’s Protection Act (SPA), merchant marine seamen enjoy the same protection against retaliation that railroad workers enjoy under the Federal Rail Safety Act. But due to the shipping industry’s pervasive culture of retaliation against seamen who report safety hazards to outside enforcement agencies, hardly any SPA cases have been brought. Now comes a landmark million dollar SPA award exposing that culture of intimidation and declaring it no longer will be tolerated.
The case is John Loftus v. Horizon Lines, Inc. and Matson Alaska, Inc. In 2013 Captain Loftus was Master of the Horizon Trader, an 813 foot long container ship operating on the eastern seaboard between New York, Jacksonville, and San Juan Puerto Rico. Despite his 20 year unblemished record as a Captain, in June 2013 he was abruptly removed as Master due to his reporting of safety violations to the U.S. Coast Guard and its delegated inspection agency, the American Bureau of Shipping.
The purpose of the SPA is to augment the Coast Guard’s limited enforcement resources by encouraging seamen to report possible violations of safety regulations. It does so by prohibiting retaliation against seamen who report possible regulatory violations to the USCG or ABS. The world of American Mariners is small and everyone knows everyone else. By removing Loftus as Captain for specious reasons, Horizon sent a chilling message throughout the industry that safety complaints will be punished. John Loftus filed a SPA case not only to clear his name but more importantly to remedy the profoundly unsafe effect of that message.
After a three day trial, United States DOL Administrative Law Judge Jonathan C. Calianos issued a detailed 48 page Decision that is a complete vindication of John’s character as a man and as a Captain. It is a landmark SPA decision that will encourage seamen to report safety violations and discourage management from retaliating when they do.
Judge Calianos found “Captain Loftus was the most safety conscientious Master in the entire Horizon Lines fleet” with “an unusually strong commitment to the safety of his vessel and crew.” But Captain Loftus’s insistence on calling Horizon’s attention to serious safety hazards was met with indifference and inaction. As a result, “Loftus resorted to reporting safety concerns to the regulatory agencies because of Horizon’s consistent failure to correct hazardous conditions aboard the Trader. Loftus was clearly a thorn in Horizon’s side.”
In removing Loftus as Master, the Judge found “Horizon’s conduct was reprehensible” because it engaged in “machinations,” “smoke and mirrors,” and “fabrication” to mask “the real reasons” for its removal of Loftus as Master, “namely to discipline Loftus for his protected activity.” In addition to awarding full back wages and emotional distress, the Judge found such reprehensible conduct required the imposition of punitive damages close to the statutory maximum, explaining:
the need to deter others from engaging in similar conduct is uniquely critical in the SPA whistleblower context given such claims involved public safety, and an adverse action may have a chilling effect on the willingness of other seamen to report a violation. This is especially true considering how small the marine industry is, and how quickly word travels within it. Horizon’s retaliation against Loftus is exceptionally troublesome considering his reputation for being an exemplar of safety, which is exactly what the SPA is designed to promote.
The damages resulting from Horizon’s retaliation totals over $1 million: $655,000 in back wages with a high rate of interest compounded on a daily basis; $225,000 in punitive damages; $10,000 for emotional distress; and over $200,000 in attorney’s fee and expenses.
Full disclosure: John Loftus is my client, and it was my privilege to try his case and help clear his name. I would like to extend a special thanks to the impressive marine safety experts who testified at trial on John’s behalf: Walcott J. Becker, Jr. (former Vessel Superintendent at Horizon Lines), Captain Kevin O’Halloran, Captain James Staples, and  Mark A. Bisnette (retired USCG officer).
For the sake of shipping safety, let us hope this landmark case encourages all seamen to freely exercise their SPA right to report safety hazards, and deters managers from retaliating when they do. Here is the full text of Loftus v. Horizon Lines, Inc. and Matson Alaska, Inc.
Another Circuit Court has clarified the standard for awarding punitive damages to rail whistleblowers, this time in the context of jury instructions.
 After Springfield Terminal Railway Company fired Jason Worcester for raising safety concerns, he filed a Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower complaint in federal court.  The district judge instructed the jury that:
 you can award punitive damages if you find Springfield
  • acted with malice or ill will,
  • or acted with knowledge that its actions violated the FRSA,
  • or acted with reckless disregard or callous indifference to the risk its actions violated the FRSA
The jury responded with a $250,000 punitive damages award, the maximum amount allowed by the FRSA Section 20109 statute.
 The Railroad appealed, arguing the jury charge should have been limited solely to whether it “acted with malice.” In rejecting that argument, the Circuit Court endorsed the standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court and the Administrative Review Board, namely that “punitive damages may be awarded not only for actual intent to injure or evil motive, but also for recklessness, or for serious indifference to or disregard for the rights of others.”
 The take away? No proof of actual malice or ill will is necessary for FRSA punitive damages. It is sufficient for a worker to show either the railroad knew it was violating the FRSA, or acted with indifference to the possibility it was violating the FRSA.
 Here is the full text of Jason Worcester v. Springfield Terminal Railway Co. Given Worcester and the 10th Circuit’s recent decision in BNSF Railway Co. v. US DOL, the standard for determining the basis for and amount of FRSA punitive damages now is settled.  For more information on the whistleblower rights of railroad workers, go to the free Rail Whistleblower Library.

In a case of first impression, a federal court holds the only statue of limitation that applies to Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower cases is the 180 day window following an adverse action, and that no other statute of limitation applies to the filing of a de novo complaint in federal court.

In Gary Despain v. BNSF Railway Company, the Railroad fired Despain after he reported an injury. Over five years later, while the case was still pending at the Administrative Law Judge level, Despain opted to file a complaint in federal court. The Railroad moved to dismiss the case, arguing federal law’s four year default statute of limitation applies.

In a well reasoned decision, U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake soundly rejected that argument. Judge Wake noted Section 20109 contains its own 180 day limitation period, and the four year statute of limitations “applies only in the absence of other limitations periods.” He then went on to hold because the employee’s whistleblower action is substantively the same whether in the Department of Labor or in federal court, “only one limitations period applies: the 180-day period governing the employee’s initial filing” with OSHA.

The take away? An employee has the absolute right to file a complaint in federal court as long as: (1) he files a complaint with OSHA within 180 days of an adverse action, (2) the DOL did not issue a final decision within 210 days after the filing of the complaint, and (3) there has been no DOL final dismissal on the merits.

Here is the full text of Gary Despain v. BNSF Railway Company. For more information on the whistleblower rights of railroad workers, go to the free Rail Whistleblower Library.

You can tell a lot about a workplace culture by how managers react to employee safety complaints. Enlightened managers welcome safety complaints, benighted managers suppress them. Enlightened managers view such complaints as a valuable opportunity for improvement, and underscore the first importance of safety by publicly thanking those employees. Benighted managers view such complaints as a personal attack. To them, protecting their insecure egos is more important than safety. And so they lash out, finding a way to retaliate in order to broadcast what happens when workers have the audacity to question their competence.

Now comes OSHA with a Merit Finding against CSX that serves as a lesson for such benighted railroad managers. When IBEW member JJ Giuliano got fed up with the failure of CSX managers at the Selkirk Shop to address longstanding safety complaints, he delivered a letter to Superintendent Daniel Lisowski listing various violations of FRA safety regulations. In OSHA’s words, it was “a very strongly worded letter” identifying “serious safety hazards” and noting CSX’s managers “daily ritual of placing production over all else, such as shop cleanliness, locomotive quality, safety of its employees, and safety of the communities its trains pass through.”

What was the response of the CSX managers? Instead of thanking Giuliano, a few days later they cited him for not using a crosswalk board and imposed a ten day suspension. This despite the fact another employee who they saw doing the same thing was not cited. No one else had been suspended for an O test before, and they ignored Giuliano’s clean disciplinary record when imposing the suspension.

Giuliano filed a classic Federal Rail Safety Act Complaint. CSX responded by arguing Giuliano’s letter was not protected under the FRSA, a contention OSHA found “incredible.” OSHA’s investigation found “reasonable cause to believe CSX violated the FRSA” and that punitive damages are appropriate because “CSX Transportation, Inc. has demonstrated a pattern of retaliation against employees who file FRSA complaints.” OSHA ordered CSX to:

  • pay punitive damages, plus all the attorney’s fees of Guiliano’s attorney;
  • have all managers at CSX’s Selkirk Shop receive OSHA’s FRSA training;
  • provide all new hires with information on their FRSA rights;
  • expunge the suspension from Giuliano’s employment records;
  • not retaliate against Giuliano for pursuing the FRSA complaint; and
  • post in a Notice at Selkirk Shop a Notice confirming CSX will not retaliate or discriminate against employees who file FRSA complaints.

All CSX employees can thank OSHA for shining a spotlight into the dark culture of CSX retaliation. Those of us who believe in rail safety can only hope that one day all benighted railroad managers will finally see the light.

Here is the full text of OSHA’s Merit Finding in Giuliano v. CSX Transportation, Inc. For more information on the whistleblower rights of railroad workers, go to the free Rail Whistleblower Library.