56 Cal.App.5th 565
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Bernie Chacon worked ~31 years as a Union Pacific (and predecessor Southern Pacific) diesel mechanic and sued Union Pacific in 2009 for a 2007 accident; that case settled in 2010.
- As part of the 2010 settlement Chacon received payment and signed a broad Release that recited it settled "any and all" claims arising from his employment, including any medical conditions from exposure to toxic chemicals or fumes.
- In 2018 Chacon sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging diesel and other carcinogen exposure during his employment caused sarcoma.
- Union Pacific moved for judgment on the pleadings, relying on the 2010 Settlement Agreement and Release; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed Chacon’s complaint.
- On appeal the court considered whether a release given in settlement of a specific claim may validly bar future, unrelated FELA claims under 45 U.S.C. § 55.
- The Court of Appeal adopted a version of the Sixth Circuit’s “bright line” approach and held the 2010 Release cannot bar unrelated future claims; the judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chacon’s 2010 release bars his 2018 FELA claim for sarcoma from workplace toxic exposure | Chacon: §55 forbids a carrier from contracting away FELA liability for future, unrelated claims; Release cannot validly cover such claims | Union Pacific: Release language is broad and unambiguous, expressly covering all employment-related claims including toxic exposures, so it bars the suit | Release is invalid to the extent it purports to release future, unrelated claims; judgment reversed and case remanded |
| Whether the trial court properly judicially noticed the settlement documents and resolved the issue on a motion for judgment on the pleadings | Chacon: does not dispute authenticity but contends the legal effect and interpretation are disputed | Union Pacific: documents authentic and properly considered on the pleadings motion | Judicial notice of the documents was proper; interpretation resolved as a legal question for purposes of the pleading-stage ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Callen v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 332 U.S. 625 (settlement release of a specific claimed liability does not violate §55)
- Babbitt v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 104 F.3d 89 (6th Cir.) (bright-line rule: valid release limited to bargained-for settlement of a known claim for a specific injury)
- Wicker v. CONRAIL, 142 F.3d 690 (3d Cir.) (release may cover known risks if executed as part of a settlement and within parties’ contemplation)
- Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. v. Schubert, 224 U.S. 603 (release given as a condition of employer relief fund held void under §55)
- Duncan v. Thompson, 315 U.S. 1 (release invalid where employee never actually settled the claim)
- Dice v. Akron, C. & Y. R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (validity of FELA releases is a federal question)