Johnston v. Soo Line Railroad Company

Background

Robert Johnston began working for Soo Line Railroad Company in 2021. In the summer of 2023, he worked as a steel erector repairing railroad bridges. On July 31, 2023, while repairing ties on the Whitewater Bridge between Winona and Wabasha, Minnesota, Johnston's foot slipped and his knee struck the bridge, causing immediate pain and swelling. A coworker drove him to an emergency room in Wabasha, where Dr. Paul Nystrom diagnosed bruising of the soft tissue around the knee. Dr. Nystrom's written discharge instructions stated Johnston could return to work on August 2 if feeling better and prescribed over-the-counter pain medications.

Alleged Medical Interference

Johnston alleges that supervisor Nate Lund called him while he was still at the emergency room and urged him not to have prescription pain medication prescribed. Johnston further alleges that at a post-injury "drill down" (an investigation meeting to evaluate how an injury occurred), supervisors Lund and Jonathan Claycamp pressured him to return to the emergency room to change his discharge paperwork — specifically, to alter the medication instructions and the return-to-work date. Johnston attests Lund warned he might lose his job if he did not have the paperwork amended, and that Lund insisted Johnston did not need as much medication as prescribed. Johnston says he refused Lund's requests up to five times. Lund disputes this account, testifying that Johnston himself wanted to return to work the next day, and that supervisors simply advised him his discharge papers needed to reflect that if he wished to do so.

Ultimately, Lund drove Johnston back to the emergency room. The parties dispute whether Lund or Johnston asked Dr. Nystrom to make changes. Dr. Nystrom did alter the discharge summary: he moved up the return-to-work date to August 1 and crossed out the medication instructions. Johnston alleges Lund was concerned about whether the injury would be classified as "reportable" under federal regulations.

Alleged Retaliation

In the eight days following the incident, Johnston and his team were subjected to six efficiency tests (Federal Railroad Safety Act-mandated procedures to ensure employees comply with safety measures). In the prior twelve months, Johnston and his team had completed only between one and four efficiency tests per month — a total of 32 over the full year. Johnston failed one of the August 9 tests; that failure was logged in his employee record and resulted in coaching. Soo Line did not formally discipline Johnston for the failure. Johnston texted his supervisor stating he believed the failure was connected to his injury report; the supervisor responded that the test was solely for safety reasons. On August 21, 2023, Johnston resigned, citing in his resignation email management's pressure to forgo treatment and the perceived retaliation.

Procedural History

Johnston filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on August 22, 2023. OSHA dismissed the complaint, finding no significant interference with medical treatment or retaliation. Johnston appealed to an Administrative Law Judge. While that appeal was pending, Johnston filed this federal lawsuit. The original complaint named Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited (CPKC) as defendant. CPKC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process, arguing Soo Line was Johnston's actual employer. The court denied CPKC's motion but gave Johnston 90 days to properly serve CPKC or amend his complaint to name Soo Line. Johnston timely filed an Amended Complaint naming Soo Line as the defendant.

Johnston brings two claims: (1) interference with medical treatment under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c)(1); and (2) retaliation after reporting a workplace injury under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(a)(1). Soo Line moved for summary judgment on both claims on January 23, 2026.

Legal Standards

Summary judgment (a pretrial ruling that resolves a case without a trial) is appropriate only when no genuine disputes of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — here, Johnston.

For FRSA retaliation claims, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case (an initial showing sufficient to survive challenge) by demonstrating: (i) he engaged in protected activity; (ii) the employer knew or suspected the protected activity; (iii) he suffered an adverse action; and (iv) circumstances raise an inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action. If the plaintiff establishes this, the burden shifts to the employer to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action regardless of the protected activity.

Analysis: Medical Interference Claim

The FRSA prohibits an employer from "deny[ing], delay[ing], or interfer[ing] with the medical or first aid treatment of an employee who is injured during the course of employment." 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c).

Soo Line argued that a supervisor's mere presence at a hospital visit does not violate the FRSA, relying on a non-binding Missouri district court decision. The court rejected this analogy, finding the facts here involved much more than passive presence: Johnston's testimony alleged that Lund pressured him to return to the hospital, drove him there, requested to see the doctor, and asked the doctor to alter the discharge instructions. Soo Line also argued Johnston did not actually want pain medication and consented to return to the hospital — relying on another non-binding Nebraska district court decision involving different facts. The court found the record does lend some support to those contentions, but held that genuine disputes of material fact remain as to whether Lund's actions constituted illegal interference with Johnston's medical treatment. The court denied summary judgment on this claim.

Analysis: Retaliation Claim

Adverse Action

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Minnesota) has not defined "adverse employment action" in the FRSA context. The court adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which applies the standard from Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006): an action is adverse if it "might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge" of the protected conduct.

The court found Johnston established a sufficient adverse action. Johnston testified he felt he had a "target on his back" after returning to work, with supervisors surrounding the work site, six efficiency tests in eight days (far above the normal rate), a recorded failure in his employee file, and required coaching. The court found a reasonable jury could conclude this pattern might have dissuaded a reasonable employee from reporting a workplace injury.

Contributing Factor

A contributing factor is "any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the [adverse] decision." Soo Line argued Johnston presented only temporal proximity (closeness in time between the injury report and the efficiency tests), and pointed out that Johnston's coworker Eric Currier was subjected to the same efficiency tests and the same August 9 failure. The court rejected this argument, citing Eighth Circuit precedent holding that "two causes being non-mutually exclusive is the very essence and definition of a 'contributing' factor." The court found that the temporal proximity, combined with supervisors' demonstrated concern about the circumstances of Johnston's injury and treatment — evidenced in part by the return trip to the hospital — was sufficient for a jury to find the injury report was a contributing factor in the increased efficiency tests.

Affirmative Defense

Soo Line argued it could demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions regardless of Johnston's injury report. The court rejected this defense. The court noted that Soo Line had conducted only four efficiency tests in the month before the injury and had not given Johnston a failing grade — even though Johnston alleges the same procedural flaw that led to his later failure was present throughout those prior tests. The court found this evidence precluded a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Soo Line would have required the same frequency of testing or issued the same failing grade absent the injury report.

Disposition

The court denied Soo Line's motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Genuine disputes of material fact remain on both the medical interference claim and the retaliation claim. The case will proceed.