The Source for Railroad Injuries & Whistleblower Protection
A district court decision in Fresquez v. BNSF Ry. Co. awarding $540,000 in FRSA attorneys’ fees illustrates the factors involved.
Even when it is reasonable for a railroad worker to retain an out-of-state attorney who specializes in railroad law, the hourly rate awarded still must reflect the prevailing rates in the locus of the…
When exactly does the 180-day window for filing a FRSA complaint with OSHA open and close? And when can equitable tolling keep that window from shutting?
In Privler v. CSX Transp. Inc. the Administrative Review Board spells it out:
An FRSA complaint must be filed within 180 days after an alleged violation of the
…
Two recent district court decisions in the 2nd Circuit discuss what constitutes a “hazardous safety condition” under Section 20109(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rail Safety Act, Ziparo v. CSX Transp. Inc. and Caria v. Metro North Commuter RR.
By now it is fairly well settled that an employee must have both a subjective…
Another Circuit Court has corrected the 8th Circuit’s misuse of the term “intentional retaliation” in FRSA litigation. In Frost v. BNSF Railway Company, the 9th Circuit soundly rejects the suggestion in Kuduk v. BNSF that Section 20109 requires proof of discriminatory animus separate from a showing that the employee’s protected activity was a contributing…
What is Adverse Action?
The question arises, in order to qualify as an “adverse action” under the Federal Rail Safety Act, does a railroad’s investigation into an employee’s actions have to result in actual discipline? What if the charge is eventually dropped? No harm no foul? A recent district court decision clarifies the matter:…
…
…
A recent district court case vindicates OSHA’s position that a railroad’s bad faith refusal to allow an employee to return to work is an adverse action violating Federal Rail Safety Act Section 20109.
This is from OSHA’s Summary explaining its Final Rules for FRSA cases:
OSHA believes that the safe-harbor in subsection (c)(2) requires
…
The boundaries of Federal Rail Safety Act adverse action keep expanding. In Fricka v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the Administrative Review Board confirms that FRSA adverse action goes far beyond the limits set by Title VII and Burlington Northern v. White. For example, the following actions are adverse under the FRSA:
…
Federal Rail Safety Act Subsection (c)(1) prohibits railroads from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical treatment “of an employee who is injured during the course of employment.” And (c)(1) also requires that railroads provide prompt transportation to the nearest hospital for employees who are “injured during the course of employment.”
Now, in a case…