Garmon v. AMTRAK
1:13-cv-00516
D.R.I.Dec 27, 2013Background
- Garmon Sr., an Amtrak lineman, sues Amtrak in D.R.I. for discrimination and injuries tied to employment.
- Counts I, II, and III assert different theories: Count I under 42 U.S.C. §1981; Counts II and III under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).
- Counts II and III plead negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress from alleged discriminatory treatment.
- Defendant Amtrak moves under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Counts II and III; a hearing occurred December 18, 2013.
- The court applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and zone-of-danger framing under FELA; concessions and an unpled, unsworn traffic note are insufficient to salvage the claims.
- The recommendation is to grant the motion and dismiss Counts II and III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the zone of danger test bars Counts II–III. | Garmon relies on zone of danger; (not elaborated in detail in opinion). | Gottshall requires zone of danger for FELA emotional distress. | Yes; zone of danger applies and the claims fail. |
| Whether the unsworn traffic note can rescue the claims as pled in the Amended Complaint. | Note could show imminent risk of harm. | Note not pled in complaint; impermissible to consider extraneous facts. | No; extraneous, unsworn note cannot salvage the claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (zone of danger applies to FELA emotional distress claims)
- Goodrich v. Long Island R.R. Co., 654 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2011) (zone of danger applies to FELA emotional distress; requires physical impact or imminent risk)
- Lukowski v. CSX Transp., Inc., 416 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2005) (zone of danger framework for emotional injury)
- Negron-Gaztambide v. Hernandez-Torres, 35 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 1994) (plausibility pleading standard background cited in rule 12(b)(6) discussion)
- Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 310 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2002) (pleading standards under Twombly/Iqbal guidance)
- Carreiro v. Rhodes Gill & Co., 68 F.3d 1443 (1st Cir. 1995) (pleading sufficiency standard referenced)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (clarifies plausibility standard in pleadings)