Kuduk v. BNSF Railway Co.
980 F. Supp. 2d 1092
D. Minnesota2013Background
- Plaintiff worked for BNSF from 1968 until his September 2010 dismissal; he had recently been placed on one-year probation after a December 2009 derailment for which he signed a waiver admitting responsibility.
- In May 2010 Plaintiff complained (through his union rep) about a Trainmaster’s banner test and separately reported a heavy, potentially hazardous derail handle at an Anheuser‑Busch facility to BNSF’s safety team; the handle report proceeded to a safety investigation.
- After the May reports, Trainmaster Greg Jaeb performed operations/banner tests on Plaintiff; in June 2010 Jaeb and another trainmaster observed Plaintiff walking between rails on Track 190 ("fouling the tracks"), a serious safety violation among BNSF’s "Eight Deadly Decisions."
- Plaintiff testified he walked between rails to safely retrieve/attach an end‑of‑train device, had taken precautions (handbrakes, emergency brakes, chocks) and believed the ballast elsewhere was more hazardous.
- Following an investigation and hearing, BNSF General Manager Richard Ebel (with higher‑level approval) terminated Plaintiff for fouling the tracks while on probation; parties later agreed to reinstate him on paper through his planned retirement date.
- Plaintiff filed an OSHA FRSA complaint and, after statutory exhaustion, sued under 49 U.S.C. § 20109 alleging retaliation for reporting safety issues; BNSF moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff engaged in FRSA‑protected reporting of the banner test | Plaintiff says reporting the banner test (via union rep) reasonably raised safety concerns | BNSF: report went only to a union rep (no supervisory/investigative authority), so not FRSA‑protected | Not protected — report to union rep not to person with authority under §20109(a)(1)(C) |
| Whether Plaintiff’s derail‑handle complaint was protected | Plaintiff contends he in good faith reported a hazardous condition to the safety team | BNSF: Plaintiff didn’t show a good‑faith belief of a regulatory violation and failed to bad‑order the equipment | Claim survives summary judgment stage on this element — factual dispute exists about good faith |
| Whether decision‑makers knew of protected activity / causal link | Plaintiff argues Jaeb knew and his conduct influenced termination (invoking Staub) and timing supports causation | BNSF: decision was by Ebel with higher approval; no evidence decision‑makers knew of protected reports; termination consistent with rules | Court: no evidence Ebel or reviewers knew of reports; Staub inapposite; no prima facie causation established |
| Whether protected activity was a "contributing factor" and, if shown, whether BNSF would have fired him anyway | Plaintiff points to temporal proximity, repeated tests by Jaeb, and that the fouling allegation was pretextual | BNSF: consistent neutral enforcement of disciplinary policy (second serious violation on probation is dismissible); similarly disciplined employees exist | Court: Plaintiff failed to show contributing factor or pretext; even if prima facie shown, BNSF demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence it would have fired him under its PEPA policy; summary judgment for BNSF |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute / materiality standard for summary judgment)
- Araujo v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, 708 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2013) (FRSA prima facie elements and burden‑shifting)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (supervisor’s biased actions that are a proximate cause can expose employer to liability — discussed and distinguished)
- Amini v. City of Minneapolis, 643 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2011) (definition of genuine dispute in summary judgment context)
- Hervey v. County of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2008) (temporal proximity and prior discipline limits inference of retaliation)
- Kipp v. Missouri Hwy. & Transp. Comm’n, 280 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2002) (time lapse undermining causation inference)
