Caria v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Background

Joseph Caria, an employee of Metro-North Commuter Railroad, sued under the Federal Rail Safety Act, a federal law that prohibits a railroad from retaliating against an employee for reporting a hazardous safety or security condition. Metro-North moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that the evidence did not support Caria’s retaliation claim.

In October 2015, Caria learned from a subordinate that two trainees had had a verbal altercation while working on the tracks two days earlier. Caria called Robert Aguirre in Metro-North’s Office of Diversity and Equal Employment Opportunity. Aguirre forwarded the message to Employee Relations, which notified management in Metro-North’s Power Department. Metro-North later charged Caria with failing to report and address the altercation through the Power Department’s management structure. The charges relied in part on a waiver Caria had signed after a July 2015 disciplinary matter, in which he agreed that he had to report safety violations to management even when other supervisors were present.

After a hearing, Metro-North suspended Caria for 61 days. Caria appealed, but the discipline was affirmed. He later applied for disability retirement, which was approved, and he resigned with a full pension. The opinion also states that he was removed from service and charged with additional violations after another alleged failure to report a serious safety incident involving an employee under his supervision.

Legal standard

To establish a retaliation claim under the Federal Rail Safety Act, an employee must show that he engaged in protected activity, the employer knew about it, he suffered an adverse employment action, and the protected activity contributed to the employer’s decision. If the employee establishes those initial elements, the employer must show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action without the protected activity.

The court explained that protected activity under the statute includes reporting, in good faith, a hazardous safety or security condition. Relying on decisions from other federal district courts, the court held that the employee’s belief must be both subjectively reasonable—personally held by the employee—and objectively reasonable—a belief a reasonable person in the employee’s position would hold.

Court’s analysis

The court addressed only whether Caria engaged in protected activity. Metro-North did not dispute that it took adverse employment action against him. The court found that Caria could not establish the required personal belief that he was reporting a safety issue when he contacted Aguirre.

Caria testified at the disciplinary hearing that he did not view the matter as a safety issue because he learned about it two days after it occurred. During his deposition in this case, he repeatedly gave the same explanation, including that the immediate safety issue had ended by the time he was notified. He also testified that he did not realize the report involved a safety issue until the later disciplinary hearing.

Caria later cited a portion of his deposition in which he said that arguing on the tracks was unsafe and that something could happen. The court found that this testimony conflicted with his other statements and did not create a genuine dispute of fact. The court noted that it did not doubt that it could have been objectively reasonable to view the altercation as a potential future safety hazard. But the court concluded that the evidence showed Caria did not personally hold that belief when he made the report.

Because Caria could not show that he engaged in protected activity, the court concluded that he could not establish the required initial elements of his retaliation claim. The court therefore did not analyze the claim’s other elements.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Metro-North’s motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case.