The Administrative Review Board provides further proof of the erroneous use of the phrase “intentional retaliation” in the 8th Circuit’s Kuduk decision. In Riley v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, the ARB spells out why “intentional retaliation” simply does not apply to the FRSA’s contributing factor standard:
Continue Reading Further Correcting Kuduk’s Mischief
Metro North Railroad injury
Some Recent FRSA Developments
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
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:…
Second Circuit Sidesteps Subsection (c)(1) Issues
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
Federal Rail Safety Act subsection (c)(1) prohibits railroads from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical treatment of employees “injured during the course of employment.” In a fact driven decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sidesteps deciding the temporal scope of that protection (just first aid or entire course of treatment?) and its interpretative…
How the FRSA Can Protect Safety Absences From Discipline
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
It is especially important for rail workers in safety sensitive positions to know how to book off when their medical condition renders them unsafe. To quote the Chairman of the NTSB: “The public deserves alert operators. That’s not too much to ask.” Yes, but how can a rail worker protect a safety absence from…
Article Confirms Railroad Culture of Retaliation
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
Although it comes as no surprise to railroad employees, an investigative article exposes for the rest of the country how railroads continue to retaliate against workers who report safety hazards or injuries. The article is entitled: For Big Railroads, a Carload of Whistleblower Complaints and is published by FairWarning Reports.
The article notes that…
Railroads Cannot Interfere With Injured Worker Medical Treatment
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
In the landmark decision of Santiago v. Metro North Railroad, the Administrative Review Board held that Federal Rail Safety Act “Section 20109(c)(1) bars a railroad from denying, delaying, or interfering with an employee’s medical treatment throughout the period of treatment and recovery from a work injury.” The Administrative Review Board also held that a…
The Price Railroads Pay For Ignoring the FRSA
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
Well over a year before its string of death and derailment, Metro North was subjected to the first Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower jury trial in the nation, Barati v Metro North. During that trial, cross examination of the Heads of Metro North’s Safety, Training, and Track Departments exposed the disconnect between the Railroad’s…
Metro North Hit With Seven FRSA c(2) Violations
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act, Railroad Injuries
Once again, the federal government is telling Metro North that its “discipline trumps safety” culture must change. OSHA’s Whistleblower Directorate has found Metro North violated subsection c(2) of the Federal Rail Safety Act in seven cases. In each case, the employee followed his doctor’s order to stay home because he could not safely perform his…
FRSA Prohibits Railroad Interference With Medical Treatment
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
Thanks to the Federal Rail Safety Act, railroads can no longer interfere with the medical treatment of injured employees. That fact is being reinforced with punitive damage awards against railroads who ignore this new reality.
In the landmark decision of Santiago v. Metro North Railroad, the Administrative Review Board held that FRSA "Section…