266 F. Supp. 3d 659
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiff Henry Lockhart, a Long Island Railroad (LIRR) locomotive engineer, claims LIRR disciplined him in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) after absences tied to (a) dentist-prescribed Vicodin for a toothache and (b) Oxycodone for a prior work-related shoulder injury.
- LIRR issued a Letter of Caution (Sept. 20, 2013) for several absences related to the tooth care; that Letter was later withdrawn after Lockhart provided physician documentation.
- Lockhart filed an OSHA complaint (Oct. 11, 2013) alleging FRSA retaliation; OSHA dismissed parts of the complaint, concluding FRSA does not protect absences for non-work-related illnesses ordered by a physician.
- LIRR had an SLA-28 medical-certification policy requiring submission of a form within three days of returning to work to avoid attendance discipline; Lockhart did not submit the form and acknowledged that submission would have prevented the Letters.
- LIRR later issued a Letter of Investigation (Oct. 6, 2014) related to absenteeism; Lockhart alleges this and the earlier caution amounted to retaliation under FRSA (sections (a)(2), (b)(1)(A), and (c)(2)).
- District Court granted LIRR summary judgment, concluding Lockhart failed to establish protected activity or that protected activity was a contributing factor to any adverse action, and upheld the reasonableness of the SLA-28 verification policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absences for dentist-prescribed Vicodin/oral surgery are FRSA-protected | Lockhart: absences and reporting were protected under FRSA anti-retaliation provisions | LIRR: absences were non-work-related; FRSA protection for (b)(1)(A) and (c)(2) applies only to work-related conditions | Held: Not protected; no adverse action (Letter withdrawn) and FRSA does not cover non-work-related illnesses for these provisions |
| Whether refusal to violate a federal safety rule (§20109(a)(2)) covers personal medical inability to work | Lockhart: refusal to work while on narcotics is protected as refusal to violate safety regs | LIRR: statute targets refusal to violate safety rules relating to railroad equipment/operations, not personal medical conditions | Held: §20109(a)(2) does not reasonably extend to personal, non-railroad conditions; applying it would produce absurd results |
| Whether absences for a work-related shoulder injury invoking §20109(c)(2) are protected | Lockhart: treatment orders for a work injury (Oxycodone) are protected under (c)(2) | LIRR: even if protected, Lockhart did not comply with SLA-28 verification and presented no evidence of retaliatory animus | Held: Claim fails — no evidence that protected activity was a contributing factor; discipline resulted from failure to follow employer’s verification policy |
| Whether SLA-28 verification policy unlawfully waives FRSA rights under §20109(h) | Lockhart: requiring SLA-28 effectively waives FRSA protections and is invalid | LIRR: SLA-28 is a reasonable verification rule that furthers FRSA goals and does not waive rights | Held: SLA-28 is lawful; §20109(h) does not preclude reasonable employer verification requirements; policy advances FRSA purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd., 710 F.3d 443 (2d Cir.) (elements and burdens for FRSA retaliation claim)
- Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 776 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2015) (FRSA protections have a work-related limitation; absenteeism safety concerns)
- Grimes v. BNSF Ry. Co., 746 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2014) (employer verification/attendance policies and FRSA claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and moving party burden)
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (statutory interpretation canon against reading statutes to produce absurd results)