Armstrong v. BNSF Railway Co.
880 F.3d 377
7th Cir.2018Background
- Armstrong, a BNSF conductor, alleged he was injured when supervisor Motley shut a Glasshouse door on his leg after Armstrong complained about being out of uniform; BNSF reviewed onboard video and disputed Armstrong’s account.
- After the incident, BNSF removed Armstrong from service for insubordination, investigated, held a union-represented hearing, and terminated him for insubordination, dishonesty, and misrepresenting the origin of his injury.
- Armstrong sued under the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) claiming unlawful retaliation for reporting a work-related injury; first trial ended in mistrial; second jury returned a verdict for BNSF.
- The jury found Armstrong failed to prove his prima facie FRSA claim and also answered affirmatively that BNSF would have taken the same action absent protected activity.
- Armstrong appealed, arguing (1) a jury instruction (No. 24) misstated the law by implying he had to prove retaliatory motive, and (2) the district court erred in awarding costs to BNSF.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Instruction No. 24 (honest belief instruction) | Instruction misstated law by requiring proof of retaliatory motive rather than only that protected activity was a contributing factor | Instruction properly allowed verdict for BNSF if it honestly believed Armstrong lied (i.e., lacked retaliatory motive) | Court upheld instruction: FRSA requires some proof of retaliatory motive; instruction was not inaccurate and any error was harmless given defense verdict |
| Award of costs to prevailing employer | FRSA’s provision awarding costs to prevailing employees (but silent as to employers) precludes costs to prevailing employers | Rule 54(d) presumption allows courts to award costs to prevailing parties absent a statute to the contrary | Court affirmed costs award: FRSA silence does not displace Rule 54(d); district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Smith, 827 F.3d 609 (7th Cir.) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- Araujo v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 708 F.3d 152 (3d Cir.) (FRSA contributing-factor discussion relied on by plaintiff)
- Maraño v. Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 1137 (Fed. Cir.) (whistleblower-causation standard referenced by Araujo)
- Kuduk v. BNSF Ry. Co., 768 F.3d 786 (8th Cir.) (FRSA requires discriminatory animus; contributing factor must be intentional retaliation)
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (Sup. Ct.) (Rule 54(d) presumption for costs; statute must be contrary to displace it)
- Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926 (7th Cir.) (district court discretion on costs)
- Leimkuehler v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 713 F.3d 905 (7th Cir.) (statute must be literally contrary to Rule 54(d) to displace cost-award discretion)