APPELLATE COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WHO WAS DISCIPLINED FOR REPORTING A PERSONAL INJURY
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on February 19, 2013, issued its decision in the case of Anthony Araujo v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (No. 12-2128). Quoting the first paragraph of the court’s opinion:
“Anthony Araujo filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that he was disciplined by New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (“NJT”) in retaliation for his participation in an activity protected by the Federal Rail Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20109 (“FRSA”). Specifically, Araujo reported an emotional injury after he witnessed a fatal accident on February 25, 2008. The District Court (Judge Stanley R. Chesler) found that the discipline was not retaliatory and granted NJT’s motion for summary judgment. See Araujo v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., No. 10-CV-3985, 2012 WL 1044619 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2012). We will reverse the order of the District Court and remand.”
Hoey & Farina recommends that every railroad worker and local union officer read this U.S. Court of Appeals' decision because it defines how the FRSA § 20109 is to be applied.
Noteworthy issues addressed include:
- Disparate Treatment (Discipline Not Issued for Previous Violations)
- Employee Drug Testing After Suspected Rule Violation(s)
- Filing of Disciplinary Charges After a Railroader Reports an Injury
- Railroader Not Required to Provide Evidence of Motive For Retaliatory Action
- Railroader's Reduced Burden of Proof in FRSA Cases
- Safety Rules vs. 'On-The-Ground Practices'
If you have any questions concerning your own railroad work injury and/or retaliatory action on the part of your employer railroad, call Hoey & Farina, FELA / FRSA attorneys, at 888-425-1212. (For more information concerning railroad whistleblower rights, visit Whistleblower Protection and Whistleblower Decisions.)