Gunderson v. BNSF Railway, No. 15-2905 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit alleging that BNSF violated the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109, when it terminated his employment for harassing a co-worker and threatening a supervisor. The district court ultimately granted BNSF summary judgment on the merits and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim because he failed to submit evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to infer that his FRSA-protected activities were a contributing factor in BNSF's decision to discharge him for harassing and intimidating a co-worker. Because BNSF did not sufficiently develop its alternative waiver argument, did not raise a laches or estoppel defense in the district court or on appeal, and presented insufficient proof (if any) on these fact intensive issues, the court left these questions for another day. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Rail Safety Act. The summary judgment dismissing Gunderson's retaliation claim must be affirmed because he failed to submit evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to infer that his FRSA-protected activities were a contributing factor in defendant's decision to discharge him for harassing and intimidating a co-worker; defendant's argument that Gunderson waived his right to file a de novo action in district court by engaging in protracted administrative adjudication of the merits of his FRSA retaliation claim would be left to another day. Judge Colloton, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
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.