Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Thomas Perez, 778 F.3d 507

Kruse, a Norfolk Southern train conductor, sustains an on-the-job injury in March 2010 and takes leave.
Upon return, Kruse is suspended for 30 days for speeding; union appeals under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
Arbitration boards under the RLA conclude NS was justified but reduce the suspension to 30 days deferment with pay for lost time.
Kruse files a Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) retaliation claim with the Department of Labor during arbitration.
ALJ denies NS’s summary-judgment based on FRSA, Board affirms; NS petitions for review challenging the election-of-remedies ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §20109(f) bar Kruse's FRSA claim after RLA arbitration?	Kruse contends RLA arbitration does not trigger §20109(f).	NS contends RLA is an 'other provision of law' and arbitration triggers the bar.	No; §20109(f) does not bar the FRSA claim.

Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, 558 U.S. 67 (2009) (contextual background on arbitration history under the RLA)
Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 284 (1963) (historical development of the RLA arbitration framework)
Price v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 360 U.S. 601 (1959) (required arbitration framework and finality of arbitration awards)
Reed v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 740 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2014) (separate circuits' approach to §20109(f) and 'protection' concept)
Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (read statute in context; textual harmony)
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (more recent statute controls in irreconcilable conflicts)