Demott v. CSX Transportation, Inc.-Baltimore Division
701 F. App'x 262
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Evard DeMott, a CSX employee, filed an FRSA retaliation suit after CSX disciplined him for several safety- and conduct-related charges (unsecured locomotive, speeding, failing to report a speed-indicator problem, unauthorized calibration, and insubordination).
- DeMott contended the discipline was retaliation for protected safety activities: reporting unsafe conditions, publishing a safety bulletin, and filing an OSHA complaint.
- The district court granted summary judgment for CSX; DeMott appealed, and also challenged denial of his Rule 59(e) motion.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and applied the FRSA retaliation framework: protected activity; employer knowledge; adverse personnel action; protected activity was a contributing factor; if prima facie met, employer must show by clear and convincing evidence it would have acted anyway.
- The panel found sufficient evidence that decision-makers (Road Foremen Keller and Matthews, and Division Manager Wright) knew of some protected activities, temporal proximity and other facts supported that protected activity was a contributing factor, and that CSX did not meet the clear-and-convincing proof requirement.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal standard for FRSA summary judgment | DeMott argued the court applied the wrong standard and should evaluate all elements under FRSA retaliation framework | CSX relied on district court’s application of law and summary judgment ruling | Court applied correct de novo summary judgment standard and FRSA framework; vacated because factual disputes remained |
| Knowledge of decision-makers | DeMott argued decision-makers knew of his protected safety reports and activities | CSX contended decision-makers lacked knowledge of protected activity | Court held evidence sufficiently tied knowledge to the relevant decision-makers (Keller, Matthews, Wright) for prima facie case |
| Causation (contributing factor) | DeMott argued temporal proximity and manager statements show protected activity contributed to discipline | CSX argued discipline was for legitimate safety violations and not motivated by protected activity | Court held contributing-factor element met based on timing, targeted treatment, and managerial statements |
| Employer burden (clear and convincing) | DeMott argued CSX failed to prove it would have disciplined him absent protected activity by clear and convincing evidence | CSX argued it met the high burden showing discipline would have occurred regardless | Court held CSX did not meet clear-and-convincing proof; declined to affirm on that alternate ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Conrad v. CSX Transp., 824 F.3d 103 (4th Cir. 2016) (FRSA retaliation elements and decision-maker knowledge must be tied to actor)
- Feldman v. Law Enf't Assocs. Corp., 752 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2014) (defining "contributing factor" standard in workplace retaliation context)
- Jimenez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 2001) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Foster v. Univ. of Md.-E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2015) (temporal proximity can establish causation in prima facie case)
- Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC, 775 F.3d 202 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)