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
Railroad Retaliation
How To Analyze “False and Misleading” Injury Report Retaliation
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…
Some Federal Rail Safety Act Updates
Here are some recent developments in the world of the Federal Rail Safety Act.
In Bailey v. Consolidated Rail Corp., ALJ Colleen A. Geraghty found that the Railroad retaliated against the employee due to his reporting safety concerns, and ordered various FRSA make whole remedies. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Decision…
ARB Rules The Mere Filing Of A Charging Letter Constitutes FRSA Adverse Action
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…
OSHA Again Exposes The Dark Side of Norfolk Southern Railway
The sad saga of Norfolk Southern’s reckless disregard for the rights of its injured workers continues. You would think that after nearly a dozen adverse Federal Rail Safety Act Findings ordering millions in punitive and other damages, it could not get much worse for Norfolk Southern. And yet it does.
This time, OSHA comes right…
Magical Thinking Does Not Release Pending FRSA Complaint
A federal district court has ruled that a General Release for a Federal Employers Liability Act personal injury does not also release a pending Federal Rail Safety Act complaint. In Tagliatela v. Metro North Railroad, 2012 U.S.Dist LEXIS 161835 (D.Conn. Nov. 13, 2012), custodian Ralph Tagliatela was disciplined for the “late reporting” of an…
Discipline Based On Injury Investigation Information Violates FRSA
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.
How To Name Names In FRSA Complaints
In addition to naming the railroad as a defendant in a Federal Rail Safety Act complaint, employees have the power to name managers or supervisors as individual defendants as well. And there are good reasons for doing so.
When OSHA, a judge, or a federal jury finds that a manager illegally retaliated against a worker…
Railroad Injuries Gain A Triple Layer of FRSA Protection
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…
Raising Cain: BNSF Slammed With Maximum FRSA Punitive Damages!
As predicted, the maximum amount of punitive damages is becoming routine in Federal Rail Safety Act cases. This past spring a federal jury ordered $1 million in punitive damages in the first FRSA jury trial. Now, an Administrative Law Judge has awarded the $250,000 statutory maximum in punitive damages against a railroad for…