William Conrad v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
824 F.3d 103
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- William M. Conrad, a CSX freight conductor and former local union chairman (2009–2012), reported safety concerns and defended union members, including reporting a possible Hours of Service Act violation (the "Deineen Incident").
- In February 2011, supervisors observed Conrad violate CSX safety rules and charged him with a "serious" offense; he took a "time out" rather than formal discipline.
- In August 2011, after advising a co-worker not to enter Demmler Yard because of qualification/safety concerns, Conrad was again observed committing safety violations and charged with another "serious" offense.
- Conrad sued CSX under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. § 20109, alleging retaliation for protected safety-related activity; CSX moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for CSX, concluding Conrad failed to show that any decision-maker who imposed discipline knew of his protected activity; Conrad appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What showing of "knowledge" satisfies the FRSA's prima facie element that the employer knew of protected activity? | Conrad: knowledge may be imputed if any supervisory employee knew of protected activity, even if not involved in the disciplinary decision. | CSX: knowledge must be tied to the actual decision-maker(s) who took the adverse action. | The court held knowledge must be tied to the decision-maker involved in the unfavorable personnel action. |
| Did Conrad present sufficient evidence that the decision-makers knew of his protected activity (for either incident)? | Conrad: circumstantial inferences from chain-of-command and certain communications suffice to create a factual dispute. | CSX: declarations from the observing supervisors uniformly deny knowledge; plaintiff offered no admissible evidence to contradict them. | The court held Conrad failed to produce evidence that any decision-maker knew of his protected activity; summary judgment for CSX affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Groves v. Communication Workers of America, 815 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard review)
- Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp., 752 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2014) (FRSA/AIR-21 prima facie framework and burden shifting)
- Kuduk v. BNSF Ry. Co., 768 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2014) (lower-level supervisor knowledge insufficient where decision-makers lacked actual or constructive knowledge)