Under the FRSA, it is protected activity to report a “hazardous safety condition.” Whether a worker’s own illness or personal impairment is such a hazardous condition has been a matter of dispute. But now the Administrative Review Board confirms that
Charles Goetsch Law Offices LLC
Charles Goetsch Law Offices LLC is a law firm that focuses on whistleblower protection and labor rights, particularly within the transportation sectors such as railroads and maritime shipping. The firm publishes detailed analyses and commentary on legal developments affecting whistleblower statutes like the Federal Rail Safety Act and the Seaman's Protection Act. Their content often addresses legal strategies for employees facing retaliation, interpretations of recent court rulings, and regulatory enforcement actions. The firm provides resources aimed at helping workers understand their rights when reporting safety violations or injuries, emphasizing the legal burdens of proof and protections against employer retaliation.
Latest from Charles Goetsch Law Offices LLC - Page 2
What Determines the Hourly Rate for Attorney Fee Awards?
A district court decision in Fresquez v. BNSF Ry. Co. awarding $540,000 in FRSA attorneys’ fees illustrates the factors involved.
Even when it is reasonable for a railroad worker to retain an out-of-state attorney who specializes in railroad law,…
More On The FRSA’s 180 Day Filing Window
When exactly does the 180-day window for filing a FRSA complaint with OSHA open and close? And when can equitable tolling keep that window from shutting?
In Privler v. CSX Transp. Inc. the Administrative Review Board spells it out:
An…
What Qualifies As A Hazardous Safety Condition?
Two recent district court decisions in the 2nd Circuit discuss what constitutes a “hazardous safety condition” under Section 20109(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rail Safety Act, Ziparo v. CSX Transp. Inc. and Caria v. Metro North Commuter RR.
By…
FRSA ALERT: US Supreme Court Clarifies FRSA Causation
Some recent decisions by the ARB and the 6th, 7th, and 8th Circuits have muddled the causation standard for FRSA whistleblower retaliation cases. This past week’s United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020 U.S. LEXIS…
The Scope of Temporal Proximity
We know the closer in time between a protected activity and an adverse action, the more powerful is the inference the protected activity was a contributing factor to the adverse action. Indeed, where the protected act and the retaliation occur…
A $1.74 million FRSA Judgment
When BNSF track inspector Brandon Fresquez refused to falsify reports of track defect repairs, he was terminated for insubordination. In another example of the transformative power of the FRSA, a federal jury and judge have ordered BNSF Railway to pay…
Protecting Subway Workers From Retaliation
A recent decision from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board holds, in a case of first impression, that the National Transit Systems Security Act (NTSSA), 6 U.S.C. Section 1142, “provides subway employees protection against retaliation for raising concerns…
Circuit Court Rejects “Honestly Held Belief” Defense
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals confirms that a railroad can violate the FRSA even if it honestly believes an employee violated a rule. In Blackorby II, the employee was disciplined for violating BNSF’s rule requiring the “immediate” reporting of…
Fine Tuning The Expungement Remedy
When the imposition of discipline violates the Federal Rail Safety Act, it is routine for OSHA or a judge to order its expungement from the railroad’s records. But what if that runs afoul of other laws requiring the preservation…