Railroad Whistleblower

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

The latest Federal Rail Safety Act district court decision confirms that the statutory jurisdiction of the federal courts over railroad whistleblower cases can not be limited by DOL regulations or actions.

After trackmen Donald Glista and William Orr reported injuries, Norfolk Southern Railway fired them for "conduct unbecoming" and for making "false and conflicting statements." For that blatant

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

A recent decision against Amtrak clarifies the Federal Rail Safety Act rights of injured employees to return to work over a railroad’s objection.

After Amtrak locomotive engineer Jonette Nagra reported a work related injury, her treating neurosurgeon kept her out of work on temporary total disability. Eventually her doctor released her to return to work