Vincenzini v. TransitAmerica Services, Inc.

Background

TransitAmerica Services, Inc. (TASI) operates Caltrain’s passenger rail system and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Herzog Transit Services, Inc. Dennis Vincenzini worked as a TASI locomotive engineer from 2012 until TASI terminated him in 2020. He also served as a local union chairman and legislative representative and made safety and working-condition complaints to the Federal Railroad Administration and at safety committee meetings.

The parties agreed that on August 4, 2020, Vincenzini disabled the train’s Positive Train Control system without dispatcher authorization. TASI contended that he had done so four additional times between July 30 and August 4, 2020. TASI also contended that he disabled the automatic brake valve during one incident. The records showed that the safety system was disabled on the five occasions and that the train exceeded its maximum speed on four of them. TASI investigated the incidents, held a hearing, and terminated Vincenzini. Vincenzini completed the administrative procedures available under the collective bargaining agreement, including an appeal and arbitration.

Vincenzini sued in state court, and TASI removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Three of Vincenzini’s original five claims were dismissed by stipulation. The remaining claims were retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5 and common-law wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Evidentiary rulings

The court sustained TASI’s objection to expert opinions in paragraphs 15 through 17 of Marc Beauchamp’s declaration because Beauchamp had not submitted the expert report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). The court denied TASI’s objection to the Mark Kenny declaration as moot because it did not rely on that declaration, and sustained TASI’s objections to the Jordan Coleman declaration. The court sustained Vincenzini’s objections to the internal appeal and Public Law Board decision, denied his objection to deposition testimony, and denied as moot his objection to the Federal Railroad Administration safety advisory because the court did not rely on it.

Section 1102.5 retaliation claim

California Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against an employee who reports information that the employee reasonably believes shows a violation of law. Under section 1102.6, the employee must first show by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action. The employer then must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action for legitimate, independent reasons even without the protected activity.

The court held that Vincenzini’s section 1102.5 claim was not untimely to the extent he sought damages. Because he filed suit more than one year but less than three years after his termination, his request for civil penalties under section 1102.5(f) was time-barred, while his claim for compensatory damages was not.

The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Vincenzini engaged in protected activity. He declared that he and the union’s state chairman pursued complaints when they had reason to believe that a safety or health concern violated a rule or regulation, and at least one complaint resulted in enforcement measures by the Federal Railroad Administration.

The court nevertheless found that Vincenzini lacked evidence connecting his protected activity to his termination. His prior performance history did not support an inference of retaliation, the several-month gap between his last safety complaint and his suspension was too long to establish causation based on timing alone, and the intervening safety violations weakened any such inference. Vincenzini also did not provide admissible evidence showing that similarly situated engineers committed comparably serious violations without receiving discipline.

The court further held that TASI proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated Vincenzini for legitimate, independent reasons. Those reasons included five unauthorized Positive Train Control shutdowns while passengers were aboard, one automatic-brake-valve shutdown that created a risk that the brakes would not reengage, speeding during four of the incidents, and paperwork that represented the system had remained enabled. The court granted summary judgment to TASI on the section 1102.5 claim.

Wrongful-termination public-policy claim

Vincenzini argued that his public-policy claim included a policy based on 49 U.S.C. section 20109, which protects good-faith reports of hazardous safety or security conditions. The court agreed that Vincenzini had reported hazardous safety or security conditions in good faith. It nevertheless granted summary judgment to TASI because Vincenzini produced no evidence linking those reports to his termination, and TASI showed by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated him for the safety violations regardless of the reports.

Disposition

The court granted TASI’s motion for summary judgment on both remaining claims. The order constituted the judgment, and the clerk was directed to close the file.