Moran v. MTA Metro-North Railroad Company

Background

Thomas M. Moran brought claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against MTA Metro-North Railroad Company, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and several MTA police officers. This order concerns only Moran’s FELA claim against Metro-North under a theory of respondeat superior, meaning alleged employer responsibility for conduct by another person acting as the employer’s agent.

Moran was a Metro-North conductor working on a train from Grand Central Terminal to New Haven on August 4, 2017. A passenger who wanted to travel to Harlem-125th Street boarded even though the train would not allow passengers boarding at Grand Central to get off there. The parties disputed what happened afterward. Moran said the passenger became verbally abusive and that the MTA police officers did not assist him. Later, as Moran walked toward the train, the officers followed him. Officer Douglas Cohen grabbed Moran, threw him down, and, with assistance from other officers, handcuffed him. Moran was taken to a police station and then to Manhattan Central Booking, where he was arraigned and released. The charges were dismissed on February 5, 2018.

Earlier ruling and reconsideration

In a March 31, 2021 order, the court denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on Moran’s FELA claim against Metro-North under the respondeat-superior theory. The court later reconsidered and reinstated a separate malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Nicholas Strype. In this order, the court used Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to reconsider its earlier interlocutory ruling—the earlier ruling before final judgment—and revised the portion concerning Metro-North’s alleged responsibility for the MTA police officers.

The court explained that reconsideration was appropriate because the earlier ruling had clearly erred by not addressing whether the officers acted under a contract with Metro-North. The court also considered new evidence, including deposition testimony from Metro-North’s general counsel and the Amended Restated Service Agreement. The court stated that reconsideration was warranted to prevent manifest injustice to defendants.

FELA agency analysis

The parties did not dispute that the MTA police officers were not officers or employees of Metro-North. The officers were employed, paid, and supervised by the MTA. The issue was therefore whether they qualified as Metro-North’s agents under FELA.

The court relied on Supreme Court precedent holding that a railroad may be liable under FELA for negligence by a third party performing the railroad’s operational activities when the third party is acting under a contract with the railroad. The court stated that the record contained no evidence that the MTA police officers acted under a contract with Metro-North. The MTA police force was created by statute, and the record did not show an agreement between Metro-North and the MTA governing the officers’ employment.

Moran argued that the Amended Restated Service Agreement established the required contractual relationship. The court rejected that argument because the agreement was signed in 1985, before the MTA police force was created, and did not refer to the MTA police force or police services provided to Metro-North. The agreement concerned the joint operation and provision of commuter rail services and did not make the police officers Metro-North’s agents under FELA.

The court further stated that, even if a contract were not required, the record did not show that Metro-North controlled or selected the MTA police force. Metro-North did not hire the officers, discipline or fire them, control where the police force patrolled, or decide which officers were assigned to Grand Central. The court therefore concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the officers were Metro-North’s agents.

Disposition

The court vacated the portion of its earlier order that had denied summary judgment to defendants on Moran’s FELA claim against Metro-North under the respondeat-superior theory. Upon reconsideration, defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on that claim was granted. The court expressly stated that the order did not change its earlier holding that Moran had raised a triable issue of fact—a factual dispute for a jury—on his separate direct-negligence theory concerning Trainmaster Douglas Martin.