Foster v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 16-1648 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against BNSF, alleging retaliation claims under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20109(a)(1)(C). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of certain claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and conclusion that claims that were properly exhausted failed on the merits. The court held that the district court properly concluded that claims asserting additional adverse actions were unrelated to the claims in plaintiffs' OSHA complaint and unexhausted, and plaintiffs failed to exhaust their claims asserting retaliation for alleged protected activity in their statements to a claims representative. In regard to properly exhausted claims, the court held that, assuming that providing information about an injury caused by the carrier's negligence could give rise to liability, plaintiffs first alleged protected activity -- handwritten statements to the trainmaster -- fell short of satisfying section 20109(a)(1). Furthermore, plaintiffs' testimony at the investigative hearing could not have contributed to earlier adverse actions, and plaintiffs failed to prove that the discipline imposed by the company for rule violations was made with retaliatory motive.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Railroad Safety Act. Claims not presented in plaintiffs' administrative complaint to OSHA were not properly exhausted under the Act, and the district court did not err in dismissing those claims; with respect to the claims that were properly exhausted, plaintiffs' first alleged protected activity in making a handwritten statement reporting a hazardous condition at an accident site, the claim did not state that the railroad knew about the conditions at the accident site or that the company failed to remedy known, hazardous conditions, and the statement did not constitute protected activity for purposes of stating a retaliation claim under the Act; with respect to the second alleged protected activity, giving testimony at an investigative hearing, two of the adverse actions plaintiffs rely upon to show retaliation occurred before the testimony was given and the testimony could not have contributed to these earlier adverse actions; with respect to the remaining claim, plaintiffs failed to show a connection between the adverse action and the protected activity.
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.