Sanders v. BNSF Railway Co.

Background

Don Sanders worked for BNSF Railway Co. as a track inspector. His job included identifying and reporting track defects, issuing orders that trains slow down, and removing track from service when necessary for safety. Sanders alleged that BNSF terminated him in April 2016 because he reported too many defects and resisted pressure to reduce or delay those reports. BNSF maintained that it terminated him for falsifying payroll records by reporting more working time than he actually worked.

Sanders recorded conversations in which division engineer Keith Jones expressed anger and concern about Sanders’s slow orders and contact with the Federal Railroad Administration. Jones said the reports reflected badly on him and asked Sanders to help protect Jones’s job. Sanders also complained to Human Resources about pressure from Jones and roadmaster Blaine Hoppenrath. BNSF investigated those complaints and determined they were unsubstantiated. Later, Hoppenrath surveilled Sanders and concluded that he had overreported his working hours. BNSF held two investigative hearings, and Sanders was represented by a union delegate. Jones recommended dismissal, and BNSF terminated Sanders on April 29, 2016.

Legal standard

The Federal Railroad Safety Act prohibits a railroad from taking adverse action against an employee because the employee, in good faith, reports hazardous safety conditions or refuses to violate a federal railroad-safety law. To survive summary judgment, Sanders had to present evidence that he engaged in protected conduct, BNSF knew about it, he suffered an adverse action, and the protected conduct was a contributing factor in his termination. A contributing factor is one that tends in any way to affect the termination decision. BNSF could avoid liability only by showing, with clear and convincing evidence, that it would have fired Sanders even if he had not engaged in protected conduct.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that BNSF did not dispute that it knew about Sanders’s alleged protected conduct or that his termination was an adverse action. BNSF did dispute whether some of Sanders’s conduct was protected and whether that conduct contributed to the termination.

The court determined that a jury could find Sanders’s reporting of track defects, use of slow orders, and removal of track from service were good-faith reports of hazardous safety conditions. The court also concluded that a jury could find Sanders acted in good faith when he resisted Jones’s pressure to stop entering slow orders without Jones’s approval. Sanders’s Human Resources complaints about that pressure were also not disputed as protected conduct by BNSF.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence of a contributing factor. Jones repeatedly expressed hostility toward Sanders’s safety reports, appeared concerned about how those reports affected Jones’s own position, and was involved in recommending Sanders’s dismissal. A jury could reject testimony that the later review by Stephanie Detlefsen and BNSF’s Policy for Employee Performance Accountability team was independent of Jones’s influence.

The court also found evidence from which a jury could find BNSF’s stated reason—time theft—was pretext, meaning an untrue or incomplete explanation for the termination. Two other BNSF employees accused of dishonesty in reporting their time received lesser discipline, and a coworker testified that employees commonly entered placeholder time records and corrected them later. The court recognized that the time gap between much of Sanders’s protected conduct and his termination, as well as the surveillance and investigative hearings, supported BNSF’s position. But the court held that a jury could weigh all of the evidence and reach the opposite conclusion.

Punitive damages

BNSF separately sought summary judgment on Sanders’s request for punitive damages. The court denied that request because a jury could find that Jones acted with reckless or callous disregard for Sanders’s rights or intentionally violated federal law. Although BNSF had anti-retaliation policies and procedures, factual disputes remained about whether the officials who approved the termination were sufficiently independent of Jones.

Disposition

The court denied BNSF’s motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, for partial summary judgment. The order did not decide whether Sanders ultimately proved retaliation or was entitled to punitive damages; it held only that the evidence presented genuine factual disputes for resolution beyond summary judgment.