Another federal district court judge has rejected rail management’s bogus "election of remedies" defense to Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower retaliation complaints.

Reed v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company concerned a trackman who was fired after reporting an injury. While the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees union was representing him for that disciplinary action, Reed also filed a complaint

"If you see something, say something, except if you work for the railroad . . . " That was the theme of the nation’s second FRSA jury trial, resulting in a $1.5 million verdict for two workers who were disciplined after reporting a safety hazard. This was a FRSA only claim, and combined, the two

The law governing Federal Rail Safety Act retaliation complaints just got a whole lot clearer. In a precedent setting decision, a United States Circuit Court of Appeals has resoundingly confirmed the remedial purpose of the FRSA while clarifying the employee-friendly legal standards that apply to all FRSA complaints. As a result, Anthony Araujo v. New

Griebel v. Union Pacific Railroad is yet another example of rail management’s attempt to circumvent the Federal Rail Safety Act  through discipline for “false and misleading” injury reports. After Griebel reported a work-related injury, the Railroad fired him for a “failure to honestly and timely make a report of injury.” A Public Law Board eventually