Cole v. The Long Island Railroad Company

Background

Brenda Cole sued her employer, The Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR), under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). FELA can make a railroad liable for workplace injuries caused in whole or in part by the railroad’s negligence. Cole alleged that coworkers physically or verbally assaulted her in four incidents between 2011 and 2017, causing physical and mental injuries.

The incidents involved Carroll Carr in 2011, Patrick Wisdom in 2013, Vito Plaia in 2016, and Daniel Ribeiro in 2017. The LIRR investigated or disciplined employees after the incidents in different ways. Cole said she experienced symptoms including decreased appetite, blurry vision, anxiety, insomnia, panic attacks, nausea, and trauma-related mental-health conditions.

Cole originally asserted claims under FELA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her amended complaint dropped the Title VII claims and retained the FELA claims. After discovery, the LIRR moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the court finds that no reasonable jury could decide an important disputed fact for the opposing party and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Statute of Limitations

FELA generally requires an action to be filed within three years after the claim accrues. The court stated that a FELA claim accrues when the person knows, or should know, both that an injury exists and what caused it.

The court concluded that Cole’s claims arising from the 2011 altercation with Carr and the incident the opinion refers to as occurring on March 9, 2014 involving Wisdom were untimely. Cole argued that her injuries formed a continuing wrong or accumulated over time, but the court rejected both arguments. It held that the continuing-wrong rule discussed in the opinion applies to Title VII claims, not FELA claims. It also held that the accumulation theory did not apply because Cole knew about injuries from the earlier incidents when they occurred.

The court therefore limited the remaining analysis to the 2016 altercation with Plaia and the 2017 confrontation with Ribeiro.

FELA Negligence and Foreseeability

FELA uses a relaxed standard for proving negligence: an employee need show only that employer negligence played even a slight part in causing the injury. But the court explained that foreseeability—the requirement that the railroad could reasonably have anticipated the particular harm—still must be shown.

Regarding Plaia, Cole relied on earlier conflicts between them. The court found those conflicts had ended peacefully and that Plaia had not previously been accused of misconduct or disciplined by the railroad. The court concluded that the earlier disagreements did not make the particular 2016 confrontation foreseeable.

Regarding Ribeiro, the court found even less evidence of foreseeability. Cole had not shown that Ribeiro had a known tendency toward aggression, harassment, or violence, or that similar parking disputes had previously occurred at the LIRR. The court therefore concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the LIRR’s negligence caused Cole’s injuries. The court did not decide the parties’ dispute over whether Cole was in the legally protected area required for certain emotional-injury claims because it found the injuries unforeseeable as a matter of law.

Ruling

The court granted the LIRR’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 44 and close the case.