Neylon v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 19-2905 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of BNSF in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging a claim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA).
The court held that, in order to make a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation under the FRSA, an employee must show, by a preponderance of the evidence: (i) he engaged in a protected activity; (ii) the rail carrier knew or suspected, actually or constructively, that he engaged in the protected activity; (iii) he suffered an adverse action; and (iv) the circumstances raise an inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action. Furthermore, the contributing factor that an employee must prove is intentional retaliation prompted by the employee engaging in protected activity. In this case, the court held that the record as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find that plaintiff's injury report prompted BNSF to intentionally retaliate against him.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Colloton, Circuit Judge, and Williams, District Judge] Civil case - Federal Railway Safety Act. In order to show a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation under the Federal Railway Safety Act, an employee must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the circumstances raised an inference that the protected activity - here, reporting a work-related injury - was a contributing factor in the adverse action; the contributing factor that an employee must prove is intentional retaliation prompted by the employee engaging in the protected activity; here, the record as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find that plaintiff's injury reported prompted defendant to intentionally retaliate against him, and the district court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary 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.