Frost v. BNSF Railway Co.
218 F. Supp. 3d 1122
D. Mont.2016Background
- Frost, a BNSF maintenance-of-way employee and union member, alleges retaliation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) after a near-miss on April 18, 2012 that he says caused PTSD; BNSF disciplined him administratively and later dismissed him (later reinstated with back pay and a reinstatement letter).
- Frost filed OSHA complaints alleging FRSA retaliation and then this civil action seeking compensatory and punitive damages under 49 U.S.C. § 20109.
- BNSF moved for partial summary judgment (targeting damages items, punitive damages, claims tied to 2013 discipline, and interference with medical treatment), to bifurcate punitive-damages proceedings, to strike Frost’s expert, and in limine to exclude various evidence; Frost moved to compel discovery and other in limine relief.
- The court denied BNSF’s motions for partial summary judgment, to bifurcate, and to strike the expert; it granted the expert’s limited testimony scope and denied exclusion of him entirely.
- The court granted and denied parts of both parties’ in limine requests (limiting certain topics and excluding legal conclusions and some character implications), granted in part Frost’s motion to compel (ordering production or witness testimony on specified safety/audit materials and related documents), and granted in part BNSF’s protective order narrowing several deposition topics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims for per diem, travel, overtime are RLA-preempted | Frost: rights arise under FRSA independent of CBA so not preempted | BNSF: CBA governs those pay items so Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempts | Denied summary judgment; factual questions and FRSA independent remedy preclude preemption at this stage |
| Whether damages for per diem/travel/overtime are too speculative for summary judgment | Frost: approximate damages allowed; factual issues remain | BNSF: calculations fail to deduct saved expenses and rely on coworker data so speculative | Denied summary judgment; damages may be approximated and are fact issues |
| Whether Reinstatement Letter bars claims (accord and satisfaction) | Frost: letter limited to labor-grievance context and may lack consideration | BNSF: reinstatement/payment made him whole and released claims | Denied summary judgment; genuine issues about scope and adequacy of consideration |
| Whether punitive damages should be decided separately (bifurcation) | Frost: single trial is appropriate; punitive issues overlap with liability | BNSF: bifurcation avoids prejudice, irrelevant evidence, and dilution of standards | Motion to bifurcate denied; overlapping evidence and limiting instructions sufficient |
| Whether expert Gavalla should be excluded | Frost: Gavalla’s experience makes his general regulatory/safety testimony admissible | BNSF: testimony duplicates lay inference, relies on hearsay, and risks unfair prejudice | Motion to strike denied; Gavalla may testify on general regulatory/safety topics but not whether BNSF violated law |
| Whether BNSF interfered with or delayed medical treatment (FRSA §20109(c)(1)) | Frost: delay in transport to hospital and inadequate counseling referrals interfered with treatment | BNSF: insisted on medical evaluation and disputes interference | Summary judgment denied on interference; facts could support interference claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine dispute rule)
- Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (RLA major/minor dispute preemption framework)
- Espinal v. Northwest Airlines, 90 F.3d 1452 (9th Cir. law on RLA preemption vs. independent statutory rights)
- Pacific Shores Prop., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142 (approximate damages and just/reasonable inference)
- Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555 (damages may be estimated when exactness is impossible)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 (standards for awarding punitive damages in employment contexts)
- Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (district court discretion to bifurcate issues at trial)