Michael Lowery v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
690 F. App'x 98
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Lowery, a CSX employee, reported multiple safety hazards (three in 2010 and two in 2011) and was later suspended after being charged with violating jewelry rules and making a false statement.
- Lowery sued under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), alleging CSX retaliated for his protected safety reports.
- At summary judgment, the district court ruled for CSX; Lowery appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit evaluated whether Lowery established a prima facie FRSA retaliation claim (protected activity, employer knowledge, adverse personnel action, and contributing factor).
- The court found (viewing evidence in Lowery’s favor) that his reports were protected, the suspension was an adverse action, and triable issues existed on decision-makers’ knowledge (via cat’s-paw theory) and whether protected activity was a contributing factor.
- The court vacated and remanded, holding CSX had not shown by clear and convincing evidence it would have disciplined Lowery absent his protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for FRSA summary judgment | Use FRSA burden-shifting: plaintiff shows prima facie; employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence it would have acted anyway | District court misapplied or set too high a standard | Court applied the FRSA framework and evaluated prima facie and employer burden correctly on appeal; vacated and remanded for factual issues |
| Decision-maker knowledge of protected activity | Knowledge imputed to decision-makers via biased subordinate Ron Baer (cat’s-paw); local managers knew and expressed animus | CSX: decision-makers lacked knowledge of Lowery’s protected reports | Court: triable issue exists because Baer advised and influenced decision-makers; cat’s-paw doctrine applies |
| Whether protected activity was a contributing factor | Temporal proximity, disparate discipline versus comparators, and evidence of animus support contributing factor | CSX: charges were legitimate and unrelated to reports | Court: genuine dispute of material fact exists on contributing-factor element; Lowery met prima facie burden |
| Employer’s burden to prove same-action would have occurred | Plaintiff contends CSX cannot meet clear-and-convincing proof on record | CSX contends it proved it would have disciplined Lowery regardless | Court: CSX did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard; cannot affirm on alternate ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC, 775 F.3d 202 (4th Cir. 2014) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Conrad v. CSX Transp., Inc., 824 F.3d 103 (4th Cir. 2016) (elements and burden-shifting for FRSA retaliation)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (cat’s-paw liability when biased subordinate’s input causes adverse action)
- Feldman v. Law Enf’t Assocs. Corp., 752 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2014) (discussing "contributing factor" standard in whistleblower retaliation context)
- Laing v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 703 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2013) (comparator evidence probative of discriminatory or retaliatory motive)
- Jimenez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 2001) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence standard)