Dakota, MN & Eastern Railroad v. U.S. Department of Labor, 948 F.3d 940

On July 5, 2012, locomotive engineer Mark Riley alleged an altercation with assistant engineer John Bollman; Riley did not immediately report the incident but filed a formal injury/safety report hours later and noted a bruise.
CP investigated, charged both crew members with rule violations including untimely reporting, withheld Riley from service during investigation, and ultimately suspended him (later reduced to 15 days by arbitration); Bollman was terminated.
Riley filed a FRSA whistleblower complaint; at the ALJ hearing he offered no evidence of intentional retaliatory animus by CP decisionmakers and instead argued his protected report set in motion the investigation that led to discipline.
The ALJ adopted a “chain-of-events” / “inextricably intertwined” causation theory and found Riley’s protected activity was a contributing factor; the ARB affirmed and rejected Eighth Circuit precedent in Kuduk.
The Eighth Circuit granted CP’s petition, holding the ARB’s chain-of-events causation standard conflicted with circuit precedent requiring a showing that protected activity prompted intentional retaliation; the court vacated the ARB order and remanded for application of the correct legal standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a factual/temporal "chain-of-events" (report → investigation → discipline) suffices as the contributing-factor element under FRSA	Riley: his report put CP on notice and thus was a contributing factor because it set the investigation in motion	CP: Under Kuduk/Staub, plaintiff must show protected activity prompted intentional retaliatory conduct, not merely a factual sequence	The court held ARB erred: Eighth Circuit requires evidence that protected activity prompted intentional retaliation; chain-of-events alone is insufficient; vacated and remanded
Proper disposition where agency applied wrong legal standard	Riley relied solely on chain-of-events causation before the ALJ	CP argued vacatur/dismissal warranted because record lacks evidence of intentional retaliation	Court remanded to ARB to apply correct standard to the existing record (declining to dismiss under APA remand principles)

Kuduk v. BNSF Ry., 768 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2014) (FRSA contributing-factor requires intentional retaliation prompted by protected activity)
Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (U.S. 2011) (causation requires supervisor's discriminatory animus be a causal factor)
Heim v. BNSF Ry., 849 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming Kuduk’s intentional-retaliation requirement)
Blackorby v. BNSF Ry., 849 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2017) (rejecting chain-of-events/Araujo approach; emphasizing discriminatory animus)
Loos v. BNSF Ry., 865 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2017) (same causation requirement)
BNSF Ry. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor Admin. Review Bd. (Carter), 867 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2017) (ARB’s chain-of-events theory contrary to precedent; remand for proper findings)
Koziara v. BNSF Ry., 840 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 2016) (rejecting chain-of-events causation; an injury report that triggers investigation does not by itself prove retaliation)
BNSF Ry. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor (Cain), 816 F.3d 628 (10th Cir. 2016) (employees cannot immunize misconduct by merely disclosing it in a protected report)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1943) (agency action may not stand when the agency has misconceived the law)