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

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

It’s a common scenario: employee reports injury; railroad conducts investigation of the injury; railroad declares the employee’s statements about the injury somehow to be “inconsistent” or “misleading” or “false” and fires him for dishonesty. Two recent decisions explain why that is a violation of the Federal Rail Safety Act.

In Henderson v. Wheeling &

It’s official: injured railroad workers who seek medical attention now have a triple layer of protection against retaliatory discrimination. A U.S. District Court has joined OSHA and the Administrative Review Board in ruling that a railroad’s denial, delay, or interference with the medical treatment of an injured employee is a form of “discrimination” prohibited by