Michael D. Loos v. BNSF Railway Company
865 F.3d 1106
8th Cir.2017Background
- Michael Loos, a BNSF conductor for 15 years, had a long history of attendance violations and an active Level S rule violation; BNSF’s progressive-discipline attendance policy led to his discharge on November 29, 2012.
- Loos injured his knee at work in December 2010, reported the injury, and sought intermittent excused absences for flare-ups; BNSF required medical documentation to code absences as "injury on duty" (ION) and denied some ION requests before Loos submitted medical notes in 2012.
- Loos testified in an administrative FRSA hearing for co-workers in January 2012; BNSF authorized his absence but briefly opened (then canceled) an investigation about that missed work.
- BNSF found Loos violated its attendance policy for May–July 2012 absences (some due to knee flare-ups and one weekend personal day), and dismissed him because he had three active attendance violations plus an active Level S violation.
- Loos sued under FRSA (retaliation) and FELA (negligence). The district court granted summary judgment to BNSF on the FRSA claim; a jury found for Loos on FELA and awarded damages.
- BNSF sought offset of the lost-wages portion of the FELA award to withhold RRTA taxes; the district court denied the offset, holding the RRTA does not unambiguously tax such damages. BNSF appealed and Loos appealed the FRSA ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Loos made a prima facie FRSA retaliation claim (protected activity was a contributing factor in his discharge) | Loos argued his safety reports, reporting his on-duty injury, and testifying in the Gunderson/Peterson FRSA hearing were protected activities and that BNSF’s denial of ION coding (and other conduct) raised an inference of retaliatory motive that contributed to his dismissal | BNSF argued attendance problems predated protected activity, it legitimately required medical documentation before granting ION coding, the discharge resulted from independent attendance violations unrelated to protected activity, and no evidence shows decisionmakers were motivated by retaliatory animus | Affirmed: No genuine dispute that protected activity was a contributing factor; Loos failed to meet prima facie showing. Court found lack of temporal proximity, preexisting attendance concerns, legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (lack of documentation), and no persuasive evidence of pretext or supervisor-driven causation. |
| Whether RRTA taxes apply to a FELA lost-wages judgment (i.e., whether such damages are "compensation" under RRTA) | Loos argued the lost-wages award is excluded from RRTA taxation (citing income-tax exclusion principles) and the RRTA should not be read to tax such non-service remuneration | BNSF and the Government argued the RRTA should be read in pari materia with the RRA (which treats pay for time lost as compensation) and that regulations define RRTA "compensation" to include pay for time lost, making lost-wage damages taxable | Affirmed denial of offset: The court concluded the RRTA’s text is unambiguous—"compensation" under RRTA does not include damages for lost wages (pay for time not actually rendered)—so agency regulations to the contrary are not owed Chevron deference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heim v. BNSF Ry. Co., 849 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 2017) (summary-judgment standard and FRSA framework)
- Kuduk v. BNSF Ry. Co., 768 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2014) (FRSA prima facie and contributing-factor standard)
- Blackorby v. BNSF Ry. Co., 849 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2017) (intentional-retaliation requirement under FRSA)
- Gunderson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 850 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2017) (consideration of circumstantial evidence and pretext in FRSA cases)
- Ludlow v. BNSF Ry. Co., 788 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2015) (when supervisors’ animus can be imputed to decisionmaker)
- Richardson v. Sugg, 448 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2006) (independent decisionmaker analysis)
- Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358 (1946) (broad interpretation of "services rendered" under SSA/FICA contexts)
- United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1395 (2014) (FICA/severance payments discussion)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference framework)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (in pari materia canon and statutory interpretation principles)