Danny Grimes v. BNSF Railway Company
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5091
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Danny Grimes, a BNSF employee, was involved in a nonmoving-train accident; he initially could not recall events but later said a coworker (not certified) had operated a car. BNSF investigated, concluded employees covered up the incident, and terminated all three for dishonesty and withholding information.
- Grimes was represented by a union representative during the railroad-conducted investigation and hearing; he could call and cross-examine witnesses and present evidence.
- Pursuant to the CBA and the Railway Labor Act (RLA), Grimes appealed to a Public Law Board (PLB), which reviewed the record, found Grimes dishonest but imposed reinstatement without backpay.
- Grimes sued under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. § 20109(a), alleging unlawful discharge for reporting a work-related injury; BNSF defended that dishonesty (a company-rule violation) justified termination.
- The district court applied collateral estoppel to the PLB’s factual finding of dishonesty and granted summary judgment to BNSF; the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding collateral estoppel was improperly applied given inadequate arbitral procedures and that the FRSA election-of-remedies provision did not bar the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Grimes' Argument | BNSF's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PLB factual findings could be given collateral estoppel effect in Grimes’ FRSA suit | PLB findings cannot collaterally estop a federal statutory claim; alternatively, PLB procedures were inadequate to permit estoppel | PLB findings are conclusive under the RLA and should preclude relitigation | Collateral estoppel may apply in some arbitration contexts, but not here—procedures were inadequate (railroad-conducted hearing, no neutral factfinder, PLB limited to record) so district court erred in applying estoppel; vacate and remand |
| Whether the RLA or Gardner-Denver trilogy forbids giving preclusive effect to arbitral findings in federal statutory suits | Gardner‑Denver trilogy only bars claim preclusion, not issue preclusion; arbitral findings can have evidentiary weight but must be scrutinized | RLA makes arbitral findings "final and binding" and thus conclusive across forums | Gardner‑Denver/Barrentine/McDonald do not categorically prohibit issue preclusion; court adopts middle approach—estoppel is discretionary and depends on procedural adequacy |
| Whether the FRSA election‑of‑remedies provision (§ 20109(f)) bars Grimes' FRSA suit because he pursued CBA/RLA remedies first | Grimes sought protection under the CBA (not the RLA itself), so § 20109(f) does not bar FRSA relief | Election provision bars seeking protection under both FRSA and another provision of law for the same act | Agrees with Seventh Circuit (Reed): § 20109(f) does not bar the FRSA suit where the employee sought protection under a CBA, not the RLA as the operative source of law |
| Whether district court must re-evaluate factual issues on remand | Grimes: district court should assess whether a genuine issue of material fact exists without giving preclusive weight to PLB finding | BNSF: district court’s estoppel/summary judgment was proper | Court vacated and remanded for district court to decide genuine factual disputes, giving only such deference to PLB as consistent with procedural-protection principles |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. City of West Branch, 466 U.S. 284 (1984) (arbitral process cannot preclude a § 1983 suit; arbitration may have evidentiary weight but not dispositive preclusive effect)
- Barrentine v. Arkansas‑Best Freight Sys., 450 U.S. 728 (1981) (arbitration does not preclude statutory claims; arbitral decisions may be evidence but not claim‑preclusive)
- Alexander v. Gardner‑Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974) (federal courts should consider statutory claims de novo though arbitral findings may be admitted as evidence)
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (collateral estoppel from arbitration may apply when federal interests are considered)
- Greenblatt v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, 763 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1985) (arbitral findings can be conclusive when panel had authority/expertise and procedures adequately protected parties)
- Universal Am. Barge Corp. v. J‑Chem, Inc., 946 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1991) (district court has broad discretion to apply collateral estoppel to arbitration findings, considering procedural fairness)
- Kulavic v. Chicago & Illinois Midland Ry. Co., 1 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 1993) (PLB review of employer‑conducted hearing did not warrant collateral estoppel in subsequent FELA suit)
- Graves v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (E.D. Okla. 1999) (similar facts; PLB reliance on employer hearing precluded giving preclusive effect to arbitral findings)
- Gonzalez v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 773 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1985) (gave deference to arbitrator’s factual finding where parties did not contend arbitration was procedurally unfair)
- Reed v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 740 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2014) (FRSA election‑of‑remedies provision does not bar FRSA suit where employee sought protection under CBA rather than the RLA)