The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Murray v. UBS eliminates the use of “intentional retaliation” to defeat Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower cases. But Murray does much more than that. By clarifying the FRSA’s two step burden of proof, it serves as a road map for winning “late” or “false” injury report FRSA cases. Here’s
railroad injury
The End of “Intentional Retaliation”
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act, FELA Injuries
After today’s oral argument at the U. S. Supreme Court, the concept of “intentional retaliation” in whistleblower cases is on life support, and I predict that in a few short months the Supreme Court will pull the plug on it for good.
The Federal Rail Safety Act and statutes like it specify a two-step burden…
Federal Court Decision Analyzes “False” and “Late” Injury Reports
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
An important district court decision spells out how to analyze discipline based on allegedly "false" or "late" injury reports. And also you can add it to the growing list of cases rejecting the hapless "election of remedies" defense still being raised by railroads in Federal Rail Safety Act cases.
Election of Remedies
After Track Department…
Announcing A One-Stop Resource For Rail Whistleblowers
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
A new web page for all things concerning the rights of railroad whistleblowers is now available on line. Go to "Rail Whistleblower Resources" for everything you need to know about the Federal Rail Safety Act. In addition to a "Summary of Rail Whistleblower Protection" and "Special FRSA Legal Standards," you will find the leading FRSA…
ARB And Federal Courts Both Embrace Favorable FRSA Legal Standards
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
The federal courts and Administrative Review Board now are moving in lock step regarding the employee friendly legal standards applicable to FRSA complaints. Building on the landmark Araujo v. New Jersey Transit Rail 708 F.3d 152 (3rd Cir. 2013) federal circuit court decision, the ARB in Hutton v. Union Pacific Railroad Company confirms that the FRSA’s…
More FRSA Railroad “Defenses” Shot Down
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
Two recent decisions, one from a federal district court and the other from the Administrative Review Board, reject several of the defenses railroads have raised against Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower retaliation cases.
Adding a FRSA Count to an FELA Complaint is Allowed
In Battenfield v BNSF Railway Company, Burlington Northern failed to prevent…
Ground Breaking FRSA Attorneys Fee Decision
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
The first federal Federal Rail Safety Act jury trial has resulted in an award of attorney fees based on the highest hourly rate in the history of the District Court. This Decision is important because it confirms that attorneys who successfully prosecute FRSA cases will receive top dollar compensation for all their time and efforts.…
First FRSA Jury Verdict Upheld With Landmark Damages Decision
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
One year ago I tried the first FRSA federal jury trial in the nation for my client Andy Barati. The U.S.District Judge who oversaw that trial now has upheld the jury’s verdict in full. In a 16 page landmark Decision, Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the Railroad’s arguments that the jury’s award of maximum punitive…
FRSA Alert! Landmark Federal Appeals Court Decision Clarifies Legal Standards
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
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 …
ARB Rules The Mere Filing Of A Charging Letter Constitutes FRSA Adverse Action
By Charlie Goetsch on
Posted in Federal Rail Safety Act
The old English Common Law had a phrase for the argument: “de minimis non curat lex” (“the law does not concern itself with trifles”). But unfortunately for American railroads, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board has emphatically rejected the application of that argument to violations of the Federal Rail Safety Act…