Gonzalez v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Background

Neil Gonzalez brought a whistleblower-retaliation action against Metro-North Commuter Railroad under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20109. Gonzalez had worked for Metro-North as a third railman since 2012. Metro-North moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing that the undisputed evidence showed he was dismissed for insubordination rather than retaliation.

The disciplinary events included Gonzalez’s refusal to return to work after a break on July 10, 2017, and his refusal to work past the end of his shift during an emergency repair on July 17, 2017. Metro-North dismissed him after disciplinary hearings. Gonzalez was represented by union counsel, and the dismissal was upheld internally and by an independent arbitrator.

Claims and legal standards

Gonzalez identified two pleaded protected activities. Count I concerned his reports about unsafe conditions in Metro-North company trucks. Count II concerned his July 2017 complaint that Foreman Michael Walsh lacked the qualifications to lead workers onto the tracks.

For an employee to establish a preliminary retaliation case under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the employee must show that he engaged in protected activity, the employer knew about it, he suffered an unfavorable employment action, and the protected activity contributed to that action. If the employee makes that showing, the employer must then establish by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action without the protected activity.

Count I: truck-safety complaints

The court viewed the evidence favorably to Gonzalez and assumed that his reports about hazardous truck conditions would qualify as protected activity. It nevertheless granted summary judgment because Gonzalez produced no evidence that those reports contributed to his dismissal.

The court emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings concerned Gonzalez’s refusal to obey orders, not the condition of the trucks. It also found that his repeated insubordination and refusal to work overtime during an emergency were intervening events that independently justified discipline. Gonzalez had been represented during the disciplinary proceedings, and the dismissal had been upheld by Metro-North and an independent arbitrator. The court further noted that the manager who received the truck complaints did not participate in the decision to dismiss Gonzalez, and that Gonzalez had not been disciplined or retaliated against when he previously reported truck problems.

The court therefore granted Metro-North’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Count I.

Count II: complaint about Walsh’s qualifications

The court ruled that Gonzalez’s complaint about Walsh’s qualifications was not protected activity under either provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act that Gonzalez invoked.

Under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(a)(2), the claim failed because Gonzalez identified no federal law, rule, or regulation that Walsh violated by giving the safety briefing or leading the workers onto the tracks. Under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(b)(1), the court found that Gonzalez had not shown that his concern involved a hazardous safety or security condition or that his belief was objectively and subjectively reasonable. The record indicated that Walsh was qualified, Gonzalez signed the safety-briefing form, continued working, and did not file a formal safety challenge.

The court also ruled that, even if the complaint had been protected activity, Gonzalez presented no evidence that it contributed to his dismissal. The disciplinary hearings addressed his refusal to return to work after the break and his refusal to work overtime, not his objection to Walsh’s qualifications. The court therefore granted Metro-North’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Count II.

Fordham Road allegation and disposition

In his opposition brief, Gonzalez asserted a new retaliation claim concerning a reported near miss near Fordham Road. The court declined to address its merits because the claim was not pleaded in the complaint, the deadline to amend had passed, and allowing the claim at that stage would unfairly prejudice Metro-North.

Ruling

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion states that the court declined to address the merits of the Fordham Road allegation; it does not treat that unpleaded allegation as an additional pleaded count.