Henin v. Soo Line Railroad

Background

Kenneth Henin worked as a conductor for Canadian Pacific from 2003 until his termination. In 2015, he reported what he described as safety violations. One report involved rules for spotting rail cars, and another involved when employees were required to use “over” and “out” at the end of radio transmissions. After the second conversation, a trainmaster sent Henin home for the day.

On May 10, 2015, Henin fell while moving between rail cars. He initially reported that he had hit his head but later said he did not know whether he had. He refused a request to submit a written report. Canadian Pacific investigated and determined that Henin had violated safety rules by not carrying a lantern. On May 18, a trainmaster saw Henin move between rail cars without securing them and without leaving at least 50 feet between them. After a hearing concerning the two safety violations, Canadian Pacific terminated Henin’s employment.

Henin filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, claiming that he was fired for reporting safety concerns. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration dismissed the complaint. Henin appealed to an Administrative Law Judge, who granted Canadian Pacific’s motion for summary adjudication in January 2019, finding no evidence connecting the alleged safety reports to Henin’s termination. Henin then petitioned the Administrative Review Board, but the petition was filed late. The Board accepted the late appeal for equitable reasons but dismissed the petition because Henin had filed this federal lawsuit.

Claims and arguments

The Federal Railroad Safety Act prohibits a railroad from discriminating against an employee for lawfully and in good faith reporting a railroad-safety or security complaint. It also prohibits retaliation for notifying, or attempting to notify, the railroad or the Secretary of Transportation about a work-related injury or illness. The employee must first file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor and may bring an original action in federal district court if the Department of Labor does not issue a final decision within 210 days, unless the delay resulted from the employee’s bad faith.

Henin’s federal complaint referred generally to numerous protected activities and focused in his opposition brief mainly on reporting his May 10 injury. Canadian Pacific argued that Henin waived his right to bring the federal action by litigating before the Administrative Law Judge and Administrative Review Board. It also argued that laches—an equitable defense based on an unreasonable, unexcused delay that prejudices the other side—applied. Alternatively, the railroad sought summary judgment, which is a ruling that the evidence presents no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Henin opposed the motion and argued that he needed more discovery. His attorney submitted an affidavit stating that two management witnesses had not been disclosed until after administrative discovery closed and that Henin had not been able to depose them. The affidavit also challenged the credibility of one witness whose testimony had been submitted by affidavit.

Court’s analysis

The court first addressed waiver. Waiver means intentionally giving up a known right. The court found that Henin knew he could file a federal action 210 days after filing his Occupational Safety and Health Administration complaint and had been clearly informed of that right. He could have filed during the delay before the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision, but did not file until after he failed to submit a timely appeal from that decision—approximately three years after his federal right arose. The court concluded that the record showed Henin waived his right to bring the federal action.

The court also found that laches applied. It determined that Canadian Pacific had shown prejudice from the delay between the 2015 events and the federal lawsuit, including the likely unreliability of witness memories. The court noted that, even two years after the events, Henin could not recall important details about his alleged March 2015 safety report. It also rejected Henin’s request for more discovery because he had been allowed four months of discovery before the Administrative Law Judge, had not taken depositions or served discovery requests, and had told the Administrative Law Judge that discovery was complete.

The court then considered the merits in the alternative. To establish a retaliation claim under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, an employee must show protected activity, the railroad’s actual or constructive knowledge of that activity, an adverse action, and circumstances indicating that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action. The court assumed for purposes of the motion that Henin had engaged in protected activity and focused on whether he had evidence that the activity contributed to his termination.

The court ruled that Henin could not rely only on the timing of the events. It found that the May 10 injury report and the May 18 safety violation were unrelated, and that no improper inference could be drawn merely because Canadian Pacific learned of the lantern violation through the injury incident. The court found no evidence of discriminatory intent beyond the timing, which it held was insufficient. It concluded that the administrative record established Canadian Pacific’s entitlement to summary judgment.

Disposition

The court granted the Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The order was signed by United States District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson.