railroad injury retaliation

Two recent decisions clarify the "intervening event" defense, the limitations period, and the basis for emotional distress damages in Federal Rail Safety Act cases.

An "Intervening Event" Is Not A FRSA Defense

Railroads often argue that the firing of an employee was based on an "intervening event" that breaks the causal connection between the FRSA protected activity and

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

In a major decision clarifying the scope of the Federal Rail Safety Act, OSHA confirms that a railroad’s denial, delay, or interference with an injured employee’s medical treatment constitutes adverse action recoverable under FRSA Section (a)(4). Section (a)(4) protects employees from adverse action due to the reporting of a work-related injury, and OSHA now