Lemieux v. Soo Line Railroad Company

Background

Scott A. Lemieux, a former train conductor for Soo Line Railroad Company, doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway, claimed that the company violated the Federal Railroad Safety Act by retaliating against him for reporting hazardous safety conditions. He identified two incidents: a February 12, 2015 report about allegedly defective brake shoes and a leaking air hose, and a March 4, 2015 report involving brake defects and a frozen slack adjuster.

After the February incident, the company investigated Lemieux for causing an unnecessary train delay and imposed a five-day unpaid suspension. After the March incident, the company investigated whether he failed to secure a train promptly and failed to perform required inspections of passing trains. Although intermediate managers recommended lesser discipline, the company dismissed Lemieux effective April 13, 2015.

Legal standard and disputed issues

The Federal Railroad Safety Act protects certain activities, including reporting a hazardous safety or security condition in good faith and refusing to work when confronted with a qualifying hazardous condition. To establish an initial retaliation case, Lemieux had to show that he engaged in protected activity, the company knew or suspected it, he suffered an adverse employment action, and the protected activity contributed to that action.

The parties disputed whether Lemieux’s February report was made in good faith and whether his February and March conduct qualified as protected activity. The court noted that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had not decided whether “good faith” requires only an honest belief or also an objectively reasonable belief. The court did not resolve that legal question because factual disputes existed under either interpretation.

The court also found factual disputes about whether Lemieux’s safety reports contributed to his suspension and termination. The evidence included the close timing between his reports and the disciplinary actions, the involvement of managers in both incidents, differences in the company’s treatment of other employees, limitations on the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearings, and the fact that the termination departed from lower-level managers’ recommendations. The court said a jury could view these circumstances as evidence of retaliation or pretext, meaning a stated reason that was not the real reason.

Employer’s affirmative defense

The company also relied on an affirmative defense. It had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse employment actions even if Lemieux had not engaged in protected activity. The court found that the company had not met that burden at the summary-judgment stage. The court cited factual disputes about whether the company consistently enforced its rules, whether other employees were similarly situated, whether Lemieux’s conduct differed from that of the engineer involved in the March incident, and whether the disciplinary investigations were closely connected to the protected activity.

Disposition

The court held that genuine disputes of material fact remained on all claims and issues. It therefore denied Lemieux’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denied Soo Line Railroad Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The opinion did not resolve the retaliation claims in either party’s favor. The court also ordered the parties to show cause within fourteen days why the order should not be unsealed and to identify any portions warranting redaction.