Ziparo v. CSX Transp., Inc.
15f4th153
| 2d Cir. | 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Cody Ziparo was a CSX train conductor who, in early 2016, was pressured by supervisors to mark tasks complete in CSX’s On-Board Work Order (OBWO) system when they were not done to inflate performance metrics tied to supervisor bonuses.
- Ziparo and a co-worker repeatedly told supervisors the practice created an unsafe, stressful, distracting work environment; Ziparo later filed a formal ethics-hotline complaint stating the practice was a safety issue.
- CSX interviewed Ziparo, then shortly thereafter a misaligned track switch caused serious damage; CSX’s records show Ziparo last operated the switch and he was found responsible at an investigative hearing and terminated.
- Ziparo sued under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(b)(1)(A) (FRSA) for retaliation for reporting a “hazardous safety or security condition.” The district court granted summary judgment for CSX, holding (1) “in good faith” requires objective reasonableness and (2) “hazardous safety or security condition” is limited to physical conditions within the carrier’s control.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding (1) the FRSA’s “in good faith” is a subjective standard (honest belief suffices), and (2) the phrase is not limited to purely physical conditions; a jury could find Ziparo subjectively believed the contested practices created a safety hazard.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “in good faith” in § 20109(b)(1)(A) requires objective reasonableness | Ziparo: “In good faith” is subjective—honest belief suffices; no statutory “reasonable” language | CSX: Reports must be objectively reasonable; prior district decisions support this | Court: “In good faith” is subjective; statute omits reasonable‑belief language and other FRSA provisions show Congress knows how to require objective reasonableness when intended |
| Whether “hazardous safety or security condition” is limited to physical conditions | Ziparo: Non‑physical practices (stress, distraction from falsification demands) can create hazards and are protected | CSX: The term should be limited to physical conditions within carrier control | Court: Not confined to physical conditions; non‑physical conditions or practices that create safety risks can qualify, so long as within work‑related/control bounds |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on whether Ziparo engaged in protected activity by reporting OBWO falsification | Ziparo: He reported an unsafe environment caused by supervisors and sincerely believed it created safety risks | CSX: Ziparo didn’t subjectively believe falsified OBWO entries posed safety risks; even if he did, reports were not objectively reasonable | Court: A reasonable jury could find Ziparo subjectively believed the practices created dangerous, distracting conditions; summary judgment inappropriate on protected‑activity element |
Key Cases Cited
- Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2014) (statute using "reasonably believes" requires objective‑reasonableness test)
- Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., 944 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2019) (applied §1514A framework because statute required reasonable belief)
- Tompkins v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 983 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2020) (FRSA causation standard: protected activity must be a contributing factor)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (U.S. 1983) (presumption that Congress acts intentionally when it includes language in one provision but omits it in another)
- Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 776 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2015) (FRSA scope implies a work‑related limitation)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1991) (good‑faith belief can negate culpability even if not objectively reasonable)
- Kuduk v. BNSF Ry. Co., 768 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2014) (retaliatory animus must be a contributing factor to adverse action)