Kuduk v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 13-3326 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against BNSF, alleging that BNSF violated the anti-retaliation mandate in the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109(a), when BNSF terminated him. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim. The court concluded that plaintiff's FRSA claim failed because he failed to present a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination where plaintiff's protected activity was completely unrelated to the fouling-the-tracks incident that led to his discharge. BNSF submitted clear and convincing evidence that it would have discharged plaintiff whether or not he had made unrelated reports that were activity protected by the FRSA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - Federal Rail Safety Act. On claim the railroad terminated plaintiff in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Act, the district court did not err in granting the railroad summary judgment as plaintiff failed to prove that he was terminated as a result of providing information related to a safety or security condition; the company also demonstrated that it would have discharged plaintiff whether or not he had made unrelated reports that were activities protected by the Act.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.