Corporate Services, Inc.
208 Kishwaukee St. · Rockford, IL 61104
(p) (815) 962-8367 · (f) (815) 962-0940

Bizarre Files: Worker Says He Was a Safety Hazard


Answering what it said was a question of first impression — which means a question that has not been raised before — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York, et al) ruled that the Federal Railroad Safety Act's ban on retaliation may protect any employee who reports what they honestly believe to be a hazardous safety or security condition.

Personal Protective Equipment
Personal Protective Equipment

The case (Ziparo v. CSX Transportation, Inc.) revives a former train conductor's claim that a railroad violated the statute. The train conductor said the railroad did so when it fired him because he reported that he was the target of treatment that was making the workplace unsafe.

10-Year Tenure Ends Abruptly

Cody Ziparo worked as a train conductor for CSX Transportation, Inc. He worked there from 2006 until CSX terminated his employment in 2016.

Ziparo said that beginning around the start of 2016, two trainmasters began pressuring him to mark tasks as complete when they were not. The trainmasters allegedly did so to "inflate their performance metrics so that they could earn larger bonuses," Ziparo said.

Ziparo said he was not comfortable with the requests and his supervisors threatened to discipline him when he refused to implement them.

The requests and threats caused him so much stress that he became unable to focus on his work. A co-worker testified that he "would just absent-mindedly walk past things or fail to complete a routine task."

Ziparo repeatedly told his supervisors that the demands were causing him undue stress and creating an unsafe work environment.

In May of 2016, he lodged a formal complaint against the two trainmasters on the employer's ethics hotline. In it, he said he viewed the ongoing pressure to falsify reports as a safety issue.

Tragedy Averted, But Then...

About a month later, a misaligned track switch nearly caused a catastrophe. CSX blamed Ziparo, saying he was the last to operate the switch before the incident.

It terminated his employment after a hearing. Later, CSX concluded its investigation into his ethics complaint. As to that complaint, it substantiated his allegations and reprimanded the trainmasters.

Ziparo later sued CSX, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act.

That statute bans retaliation against employees who report "in good faith, a hazardous safety or security condition" to their employer.

When most people think of a hazardous condition relating to the operation of a railroad, they probably think of a physical condition such as a faulty switch.

Ziparo said the hazardous condition about which he complained was the stress and distraction he endured as a result of the trainmasters' improper demands.

Trial Court Sides With Railroad

The district court rejected Ziparo's claim and ruled in favor of the railroad. It ruled that a "hazardous safety or security condition" within the meaning of the statute refers only to a "physical condition" that is "within the control of the rail carrier employer."

It said no reasonable juror could find that Ziparo really believed he was reporting a "hazardous safety or security condition" when he complained about being subjected to unreasonable demands.

Ziparo filed an appeal.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The appellate court said the appeal turned on the meaning of two key terms within the statute's provision banning retaliation: "in good faith" and "hazardous safety or security condition." It then discussed both.

As to good faith, the court relied on a dictionary definition that referenced "honesty or sincerity of intention." This is a subjective standard, the court said, "embracing only the actor's state of mind."

Reasonableness Not Required

There is no requirement that a report be based on an objectively reasonable belief that an unsafe condition exists, the court said. Under this framework, a reasonable jury could find that Ziparo made his complaint in good faith.

The appellate court further determined that limiting the statute's anti-retaliation provision to reports of physical conditions "would unduly limit its scope."

It said that "complaints of stressful and distracting work conditions like Ziparo's may well fall within the scope of 'hazardous safety or security condition[s]'."

Posted In: Human Resources, General; Quit, Resigned, Termination of Employment, etc.

Want to know more? Read the full article by at HR Morning

More News from Corporate Services, Inc.

Good-Faith Belief Is Not Always Enough

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court poked holes in what many considered an infallible employer defense to employee discrimination claims known as the "good-faith belief" doctrine.more

Texas District Court Narrowly Stays and Enjoins FTC's Non-Compete Rule

On July 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a limited stay and preliminary injunction of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) final rule that would render almost all non-compete agreements, with very limited exceptions, unenforceable (commonly referred to as the "Non-Compete Rule").more

Texas District Court Narrowly Enjoins White-Collar Overtime Regulations

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a limited injunction of the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) new regulations increasing the minimum salary that certain executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) employees must be paid to qualify for the so-called "white-collar" exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). more