49 U.S.C. § 20109 — the Federal Rail Safety Act anti-retaliation provision
The Federal Rail Safety Act whistleblower-protection provision, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 20109, is the operative federal anti-retaliation statute for railroad workers. Originally enacted in its modern form in 1980 and substantially strengthened by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. No. 110-53), and again amended in 2008 in the Rail Safety Improvement Act, FRSA prohibits railroad carriers, their contractors and subcontractors, and officers and employees of railroad carriers from retaliating against employees who engage in a broad range of safety-related protected activities. The statute is administered through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the same general framework that governs more than two dozen federal whistleblower statutes covering aviation, surface transportation, nuclear energy, environmental compliance, financial reporting, food safety, healthcare, consumer products, and other regulated industries.
“A railroad carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, a contractor or a subcontractor of such a railroad carrier, or an officer or employee of such a railroad carrier, may not discharge, demote, suspend, reprimand, or in any other way discriminate against an employee if such discrimination is due, in whole or in part, to the employee’s lawful, good faith act done, or perceived by the employer to have been done or about to be done —”
“(1) to provide information, directly cause information to be provided, or otherwise directly assist in any investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security . . . ;”
“(2) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security; (3) to file a complaint, or directly cause to be brought a proceeding related to the enforcement of this part or, as applicable to railroad safety or security, chapter 51 or 57 of this title, or to testify in that proceeding; (4) to notify, or attempt to notify, the railroad carrier or the Secretary of Transportation of a work-related personal injury or work-related illness of an employee; (5) to cooperate with a safety or security investigation by the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the National Transportation Safety Board; (6) to furnish information to the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the National Transportation Safety Board, or any Federal, State, or local regulatory or law enforcement agency as to the facts relating to any accident or incident resulting in injury or death to an individual or damage to property occurring in connection with railroad transportation; or (7) to accurately report hours on duty pursuant to chapter 211.”
“A railroad carrier or person covered under this section shall not discharge, demote, suspend, reprimand, or in any other way discriminate against an employee for — (1) reporting, in good faith, a hazardous safety or security condition; (2) refusing to work when confronted by a hazardous safety or security condition related to the performance of the employee’s duties, if the conditions described in paragraph (3) exist; or (3) refusing to authorize the use of any safety-related equipment, track, or structures, if the employee is responsible for the inspection or repair of the equipment, track, or structures, when the employee believes that the equipment, track, or structures are in a hazardous safety or security condition.”
“(1) A railroad carrier or person covered under this section may not deny, delay, or interfere with the medical or first aid treatment of an employee who is injured during the course of employment. . . . (2) A railroad carrier or person covered under this section may not discipline, or threaten discipline to, an employee for requesting medical or first aid treatment, or for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician, except that a railroad carrier’s refusal to permit an employee to return to work following medical treatment shall not be considered a violation of this section if the refusal is pursuant to Federal Railroad Administration medical standards for fitness of duty or, if there are no pertinent Federal Railroad Administration standards, a carrier’s medical standards for fitness for duty.”
FRSA’s place in the OSHA whistleblower-statute family
FRSA is part of a family of federal whistleblower statutes administered through OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program, all of which incorporate the AIR21 contributing-factor / clear-and-convincing burden-shifting framework. The family includes:
- FRSA, 49 U.S.C. § 20109 — railroad workers
- NTSSA (National Transit Systems Security Act), 6 U.S.C. § 1142 — transit workers
- STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act), 49 U.S.C. § 31105 — truck drivers and commercial motor vehicle operators
- AIR21, 49 U.S.C. § 42121 — aviation employees
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A — publicly traded company employees
- FSMA (Food Safety Modernization Act), 21 U.S.C. § 399d — food industry workers
- CPSIA (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act), 15 U.S.C. § 2087 — consumer product workers
- ACA whistleblower provision, 29 U.S.C. § 218c — workers reporting Affordable Care Act violations
- And approximately fifteen additional federal statutes covering nuclear energy, environmental compliance, healthcare, financial reform, and other regulated industries
Workers experiencing retaliation that touches on multiple federal safety frameworks may have parallel claims under multiple statutes, all proceeding through the OSHA administrative track and the AIR21 burden-shifting framework. The Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC governs the contributing-factor standard across all of these statutes. The procedural framework — 180-day OSHA filing, investigation, potential ALJ hearing, ARB review, and 210-day kick-out to federal district court — is materially the same across the family.
The contributing-factor / clear-and-convincing burden-shifting framework
The single most important doctrinal feature of FRSA is the burden-shifting framework. Section 20109(d)(2)(A)(iii) incorporates the legal burdens of proof set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b), which is the AIR21 statute’s burden-shifting framework. The same framework now applies under SOX, STAA, FSMA, and the entire OSHA whistleblower-statute family. The framework operates in two steps.
Step 1 — The complainant’s contributing-factor burden
The complainant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse personnel action. The “contributing factor” standard is significantly more plaintiff-favorable than the but-for causation standard governing most employment discrimination and retaliation claims. A contributing factor is any factor that “tended to affect in any way” the adverse personnel action — even a small contribution is sufficient.
“A whistleblower who invokes [the statute] bears the burden to prove that his protected activity ‘was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint,’ 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(i), but he is not required to make some further showing that his employer acted with ‘retaliatory intent.’“
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. 23 (2024)
The Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. 23 (2024), resolved a recurring question in OSHA-whistleblower litigation by confirming that the contributing-factor standard does not require proof of retaliatory intent, animus, or motive. The statute’s text — referring to a “contributing factor” without mention of animus or any synonym — controls. The Court’s reasoning applies across the OSHA whistleblower-statute family because all of these statutes incorporate the same § 42121(b) burden framework.
The Second Circuit applied Murray directly to FRSA in Ziparo v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2d Cir. Nov. 25, 2025), overruling its prior decision in Tompkins v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 983 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2020), which had imposed an animus requirement on FRSA plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit confirmed the AIR21 burden-of-proof framework in Parker v. BNSF Railway Co. (9th Cir. en banc 2025), and the Third Circuit had earlier established the contributing-factor framework in Araujo v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 708 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2013).
Step 2 — The employer’s clear-and-convincing affirmative defense
Once the complainant establishes contributing factor, the burden shifts to the employer to show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse personnel action in the absence of the protected activity. This is a substantially higher evidentiary burden than the preponderance standard governing most affirmative defenses. The Ninth Circuit in Parker v. BNSF described the affirmative-defense burden as a “steep” one.
The clear-and-convincing standard requires the employer to produce evidence that is highly probable, with a firm conviction of the truth of the assertion. Mere production of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons is not sufficient — the employer must establish that the same adverse action would in fact have occurred even if the protected activity had not. The evidentiary burden frequently defeats employer defenses that would be sufficient under McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting because the McDonnell Douglas framework only requires the employer to articulate a legitimate reason, while the AIR21 framework requires the employer to prove the same outcome would have occurred by clear and convincing evidence.
The combination of the contributing-factor standard (which does not require animus per Murray) and the clear-and-convincing affirmative-defense burden makes FRSA among the most plaintiff-favorable federal anti-retaliation frameworks. The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework that governs Title VII and most other anti-discrimination claims requires the worker to show pretext at the third stage; the AIR21 framework eliminates that requirement by placing the burden of proving the affirmative defense — by clear and convincing evidence — on the employer. Workers with FRSA claims who can establish even modest temporal proximity, knowledge of the protected activity, and inconsistent or evolving employer explanations frequently survive summary judgment and proceed to trial.
What FRSA protects — the comprehensive list of protected activities
FRSA’s protected-activity coverage is among the broadest of any federal whistleblower statute. The statute’s protections extend across three categories — § 20109(a), (b), and (c) — that together cover essentially every safety-related action a railroad worker may take.
Workers who provide information, directly cause information to be provided, or otherwise directly assist in any investigation regarding conduct the worker reasonably believes constitutes a violation of any federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security are protected. The “reasonable belief” standard does not require that the violation actually occurred — only that the worker had a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief. Reports may be made to federal regulators, law enforcement, members of Congress, or to the railroad carrier itself.
Workers who refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security are protected. This provision is particularly important in operational contexts where workers may be pressured to falsify records, skip required inspections, operate equipment in known unsafe conditions, exceed hours-of-service limits, or otherwise circumvent federal safety regulations to maintain schedules or productivity.
Workers who notify or attempt to notify the railroad carrier or the Secretary of Transportation of a work-related personal injury or illness are protected. This is one of the most frequently invoked FRSA provisions because railroad workers face documented industry-wide pressure to underreport on-the-job injuries. The 2008 amendments to FRSA strengthened the statute’s coverage of injury reporting in response to widespread evidence of carrier suppression of injury reports — discouraging workers from reporting, disciplining workers who reported, and structuring incentive programs that penalized injury reporting. Section 20109(a)(4) protects the act of reporting itself; retaliation triggered by an injury report (in the form of fitness-for-duty challenges, disciplinary investigations, “intelligence” investigations, charges of dishonesty, or termination) is actionable.
Workers who accurately report hours on duty pursuant to the federal hours-of-service laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 211) are protected. The provision protects workers from retaliation for refusing to falsify hours-of-service reports — a particular concern in operational contexts where carriers may pressure workers to under-report on-duty hours to circumvent federal limits on continuous operation, mandatory rest periods, and other hours-of-service requirements.
Workers responsible for the inspection or repair of equipment, track, or structures are protected when they refuse to authorize use of equipment, track, or structures they believe are in a hazardous safety or security condition. The provision protects mechanical inspectors, track inspectors, signal maintainers, bridge inspectors, and other workers whose duties include safety authorization. The “reasonable belief” standard governs — the worker’s belief must be objectively reasonable but the worker need not be ultimately correct about the condition.
Workers may refuse to work when confronted by a hazardous safety or security condition related to the performance of the employee’s duties, subject to specific procedural conditions in § 20109(b)(2)(B) — including that the worker’s apprehension of serious injury must be objectively reasonable, that the worker sought correction from the carrier, and that the carrier had a reasonable opportunity to correct or address the condition. The refusal-to-work right is procedurally constrained but provides important protection for workers asked to perform work in genuinely dangerous conditions.
A railroad carrier may not deny, delay, or interfere with the medical or first aid treatment of an employee injured during the course of employment. The provision protects workers from retaliation when they receive prompt medical attention after on-duty injuries and from carrier interference (such as pressure to refuse hospital transport, pressure to use carrier-designated physicians only, or pressure to return to work before treatment is complete).
A railroad carrier may not discipline, or threaten to discipline, an employee for requesting medical or first aid treatment or for following the orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician for a work-related injury. This provision is among the most powerful FRSA protections because it expressly protects the worker’s adherence to physician-directed medical care — including time off work, work restrictions, and treatment plans — regardless of carrier preferences. The exception for FRA fitness-for-duty standards is narrow and does not authorize discipline for following legitimate physician orders unrelated to fitness-for-duty determinations.
The OSHA administrative track and the 210-day kick-out provision
The FRSA procedural framework is one of the statute’s most distinctive features. Claims proceed through OSHA in the first instance, but the worker retains substantial control over the pace and forum of the case through the 210-day kick-out provision.
The 180-day OSHA complaint filing deadline
Under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(2)(A)(ii), an FRSA complaint must be filed with the Secretary of Labor — through OSHA — within 180 days of the alleged retaliation. The 180-day clock generally runs from the date the worker becomes aware of the adverse personnel action. Equitable tolling may apply in limited circumstances (such as where the carrier’s misrepresentations prevented the worker from learning of the protected-activity connection within the limitations period), but the deadline is strictly enforced and missed filings are typically barred.
FRSA complaints are filed with the OSHA Regional Office covering the location where the adverse action occurred. The complaint should include the worker’s identification, the carrier’s identification, the dates and nature of the protected activity, the dates and nature of the adverse personnel action, and the causal connection between the two. OSHA’s whistleblower regulations at 29 C.F.R. part 1982 govern FRSA complaint procedures.
The OSHA investigation and preliminary findings
Once a complaint is filed, OSHA investigates and issues preliminary findings. If OSHA finds reasonable cause to believe FRSA was violated, OSHA may order preliminary reinstatement, back pay, and other relief. The carrier may appeal the OSHA findings to a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge for de novo review. The ALJ holds an evidentiary hearing and issues a decision and recommended order. The ALJ decision may be appealed to the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB), and the ARB decision may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The 210-day kick-out to federal district court
Under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(3), if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision within 210 days of the filing of the OSHA complaint, and the delay is not due to the bad faith of the complainant, the complainant may file an original action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate federal district court. The kick-out provision is among the most consequential procedural features of FRSA — it transfers control over the case’s pace and forum to the complainant once the administrative process has stalled past 210 days. DOL administrative proceedings can extend for years; the 210-day kick-out lets the complainant move to federal court for jury trial regardless of the administrative timeline.
Many experienced FRSA practitioners follow a predictable procedural pattern: file the OSHA complaint, wait the 210 days, and then exercise the kick-out to federal district court for trial. The pattern offers several advantages: (1) the federal district court provides jury trial, which is generally favorable for plaintiffs in retaliation cases; (2) federal court discovery is more robust than DOL administrative discovery; (3) federal court proceedings move at a faster pace than the DOL administrative track; (4) federal court preserves appellate options through the federal circuit courts rather than through the ARB and then the circuit court; and (5) the kick-out timing is within the complainant’s control, which preserves leverage in settlement discussions. The 210-day window begins running on the date the OSHA complaint is filed, so prompt filing is essential to preserve the option.
The non-arbitrability provision under § 20109(e)(1)
FRSA includes one of the strongest anti-arbitration provisions in federal whistleblower law. Section 20109(e)(1) provides that “the rights and remedies provided for in this section may not be waived by any agreement, policy form, or condition of employment, including by a predispute arbitration agreement.” FRSA claims are therefore non-arbitrable under any predispute arbitration agreement — the worker retains the right to file with OSHA and to exercise the 210-day kick-out to federal district court regardless of any arbitration clause in the employment contract.
The non-arbitrability provision is consequential because many railroad employment relationships involve arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements, employee handbooks, or individual employment contracts. The FRSA non-arbitrability provision overrides those agreements as to FRSA claims specifically. Importantly, the non-arbitrability provision applies only to predispute arbitration agreements — workers and carriers retain the ability to enter into post-dispute arbitration agreements to resolve specific FRSA claims, but cannot waive FRSA rights in advance of the dispute arising.
Election of remedies under § 20109(f)
Section 20109(f) provides that an employee may not seek protection under both FRSA and another provision of law for the same allegedly unlawful act of the railroad carrier. The election-of-remedies provision generally requires the worker to choose between FRSA and parallel remedies (such as a Railway Labor Act collective-bargaining grievance) for the same adverse action. The election does not preclude pursuing FRSA in the first instance, and the election typically becomes consequential only at the stage where the worker would invoke parallel administrative or judicial remedies for the same conduct. Counsel handling FRSA matters typically evaluates the election analysis as part of the initial strategic assessment.
The FRSA damages framework
FRSA’s damages structure is among the most favorable in federal anti-retaliation law. Damages available under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(e) include reinstatement, back pay with interest, compensatory damages (which are not subject to the $250,000 punitive damages cap), and attorney’s fees — alongside a $250,000 statutory cap that applies only to the punitive damages component.
Categories of recoverable damages
- Reinstatement. Reinstatement with the same seniority status the worker would have had but for the retaliation. Reinstatement is presumptively available, with front pay as an alternative where reinstatement is not feasible.
- Back pay with interest. Lost wages and benefits from the date of the adverse action through trial, with interest. Back pay is calculated to reflect what the worker would have earned in the position absent the retaliation, including base pay, overtime, bonuses, premium pay, and benefits.
- Front pay. Where reinstatement is not feasible (typically because of the rupture of the working relationship, because the position has been eliminated, or because the worker has secured comparable employment), front pay extends to the worker’s projected work-life expectancy, discounted to present value. For railroad workers with long-service expectations and substantial compensation, front-pay damages can be significant.
- Compensatory damages. Emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, dignitary harm, and other non-economic consequences of the retaliation. Compensatory damages under FRSA are not subject to a statutory cap — the $250,000 cap applies only to punitive damages.
- Special damages. Special damages including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the case.
- Punitive damages up to $250,000. Punitive damages are available where the carrier’s conduct meets the applicable standard for punitive damages, subject to the statutory cap of $250,000 under § 20109(e)(3). Constitutional due process review of punitive damages may apply but is rarely consequential given the statutory cap.
- Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The prevailing complainant is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under § 20109(e)(2). Fee shifting under FRSA — combined with the contributing-factor standard — substantially affects settlement dynamics.
The compensatory-damages-no-cap feature
Under Title VII’s damages caps in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3), the combined ceiling for compensatory and punitive damages is $300,000 for the largest employers. FRSA’s structure is different and more favorable to workers in many cases. Section 20109(e) caps only the punitive damages component at $250,000, leaving compensatory damages — including emotional distress and other non-economic damages — uncapped. Back pay, front pay, and reinstatement are also not subject to any cap.
The practical consequence is that FRSA workers with substantial emotional-distress damages or extensive lost compensation can recover damages structures that would be impossible under Title VII. The $250,000 punitive cap is a meaningful limit on the punitive component, but the absence of caps on compensatory and economic damages preserves the full damages recovery for the categories where railroad-retaliation cases frequently produce substantial awards. Combined with the fee-shifting provision and the contributing-factor standard, the FRSA damages framework is among the most plaintiff-favorable federal anti-retaliation frameworks.
Recurring FRSA fact patterns
Several factual patterns recur with sufficient frequency in FRSA litigation that counsel handling these matters develop pattern-specific doctrinal and evidentiary approaches.
A worker is injured on duty, reports the injury, and is subsequently subjected to a “claim investigation” or “intelligence investigation” that focuses on the worker’s conduct around the injury. The investigation produces findings of rule violations (often relating to safety procedures the carrier alleges the worker violated in causing the injury, or alleging “dishonesty” in the worker’s account of the injury), and the worker is terminated or disciplined. The FRSA claim arises from the inference that the investigation and resulting discipline were triggered by the injury report — § 20109(a)(4) protects the act of reporting the injury, and the carrier’s intensified scrutiny following the report is the operative adverse action. The contributing-factor standard makes these claims viable even where the carrier identifies legitimate rule violations as the discipline basis. The firm’s pending matter Garza v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, OSHA Case No. 301037983, illustrates this pattern — the OSHA Secretary’s Findings Order detailed below provides a full case-study treatment.
A worker suffers a work-related injury, follows the treating physician’s orders for time off or work restrictions, and is subsequently disciplined or terminated for attendance issues, alleged dishonesty about the medical condition, or inability to return to full duty. Section 20109(c)(2) expressly prohibits discipline for following physician orders — the medical-leave retaliation claim layers onto any direct injury-reporting claim under § 20109(a)(4). The exception for FRA fitness-for-duty standards is narrow and does not authorize discipline for following legitimate physician orders unrelated to fitness-for-duty determinations.
A worker refuses to follow a supervisor’s instruction that the worker reasonably believes would violate federal railroad safety regulations — instructions to falsify hours-of-service reports, to skip required inspections, to operate equipment in known defective condition, to override safety systems, or to bypass federal hazmat or rule requirements. The carrier subsequently disciplines or terminates the worker, often framing the discipline as insubordination or job abandonment. Section 20109(a)(2) protects refusing to violate federal safety or security regulations — the case turns on whether the worker’s belief that the instruction would have violated federal regulations was objectively reasonable.
A car inspector, mechanical foreman, track inspector, signal maintainer, or other safety-authorization-responsible worker bad-orders equipment, refuses to authorize use of a defective car or track segment, or otherwise exercises safety-authorization judgment in a manner that disrupts operations. The carrier responds with discipline framed as failure to follow procedure, false reporting, or “over-tagging.” Section 20109(b)(1) protects refusing to authorize use of unsafe equipment, track, or structures — the case turns on whether the worker’s belief that the condition was unsafe was objectively reasonable.
A worker accurately reports on-duty hours in conformity with the federal hours-of-service laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 211) and is subsequently disciplined or terminated for excessive on-duty time, unauthorized time logging, or insubordination relating to scheduling. The carrier’s pressure to under-report hours is a documented industry pattern that the 2008 amendments specifically addressed by adding § 20109(a)(7) to the protected-activity list.
A worker engages in protected activity (injury reporting, safety complaints, refusal to violate) over an extended period and is subjected to escalating scrutiny — increased supervisor attention, more frequent rule observations, additional fitness-for-duty evaluations, and eventual discipline based on cumulative minor infractions that would not normally trigger termination. The FRSA claim arises from the pattern itself rather than from any single retaliatory act, and the contributing-factor standard supports the inference that the protected activity contributed to the cumulative scrutiny and resulting termination.
Garza v. Union Pacific Railroad Company — an injury-reporting retaliation case study
The firm’s pending FRSA matter on behalf of locomotive engineer Juan Garza against Union Pacific Railroad Company — OSHA Case No. 301037983 — illustrates the typical structure of an injury-reporting retaliation claim and the operation of the contributing-factor / clear-and-convincing burden-shifting framework in practice. The matter is at the OSHA Secretary’s Findings stage, with Union Pacific having filed objections and the matter proceeding to a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge for de novo review. The OSHA Secretary’s Findings Order, issued August 6, 2025, is detailed below.
The underlying facts
On November 1, 2010, Union Pacific hired Juan Garza as a locomotive engineer. On February 1, 2024, while traveling on duty as a passenger in an Uber rideshare vehicle between Union Pacific’s Strang Yard facility in La Porte, Texas, and its Englewood Yard facility in Houston, Texas, Garza and another on-duty employee were rear-ended by a Toyota Tundra pickup truck on Interstate 10. The Uber driver characterized the impact as minor, and both Union Pacific employees described pain in their neck and lower back immediately following the collision.
After reporting to Union Pacific’s on-duty supervisor at Englewood Yard and completing internal incident reports describing his symptoms, Garza obtained medical treatment from a physician — including a prescription for a muscle relaxer and x-rays. The physician concluded that Garza could return to work without restrictions on February 5, 2024. Garza communicated the physician’s advice to his manager and made a follow-up visit on February 6 with a different physician at the same practice, who concluded that Garza could return to work without restrictions on February 7. Garza returned to full duty on February 8, 2024, and at his manager’s direction completed Union Pacific’s “Report of Personal Injury or Occupational Illness.”
On February 9, 2024 — the day after Garza completed the formal injury report — Union Pacific removed Garza from duty and charged him with violating the company’s “dishonesty” policy. On March 15, 2024, following an internal investigative hearing, Union Pacific terminated Garza’s employment. The other employee in the same Uber vehicle, who experienced the same impact and reported back pain to the same supervisor but who did not seek medical treatment, was not charged with any rule violation and was not disciplined.
The six protected activities OSHA identified under § 20109(a)(4)
The OSHA Secretary’s Findings Order identified six discrete protected activities Garza engaged in under § 20109(a)(4):
- February 1, 2024: Reporting to the on-duty supervisor and other managers that he was experiencing neck and back discomfort following the on-duty automobile collision.
- February 1, 2024: Completing and submitting an internal “705” incident report describing his symptoms.
- February 1, 2024: Informing his manager that he had obtained medical treatment and was following the treatment plan of the treating physician.
- February 2, 2024: Informing his manager that his neck remained sore.
- February 6, 2024: Informing his manager that he had obtained additional medical treatment and was following the treatment plan of the treating physician.
- February 8, 2024: Completing Union Pacific’s “Report of Personal Injury or Occupational Illness.”
Each of the six protected activities is independently actionable under § 20109(a)(4)’s coverage of “notifying, or attempting to notify, the railroad carrier or the Secretary of Transportation of a work-related personal injury or work-related illness of an employee.” Activities (3) and (5) are additionally protected under § 20109(c)(2)’s coverage of “following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician.” Union Pacific had direct knowledge of all six protected activities.
OSHA’s contributing-factor finding
OSHA found that Garza’s protected activities were a contributing factor in Union Pacific’s disciplinary actions, applying the AIR21 burden-shifting framework. The central evidence supporting the contributing-factor inference was Union Pacific’s disparate treatment of Garza compared to the other employee in the same collision: both employees reported pain immediately after the collision, but Garza sought medical attention (which resulted in the injury becoming an FRA-reportable injury) while the other employee did not seek medical treatment. Only Garza was charged with a rule violation and terminated. The other employee, who experienced the same impact and reported the same symptoms but did not seek medical care, was not disciplined.
OSHA also found that Union Pacific did not reasonably believe that Garza had lied about being injured. Union Pacific’s contention rested principally on a non-medically-trained supervisor’s observation that Garza appeared to walk and move normally when removing his gear from the Uber, combined with the Uber driver’s characterization of the impact as a “small bump.” OSHA concluded that this evidence was not sufficient to support a reasonable belief that Garza had lied, particularly given that two medical professionals had evaluated Garza and treated him for his pain in the days following the collision, and given that Union Pacific had the opportunity to send Garza for an independent medical opinion but did not do so.
Union Pacific’s failure to meet the clear-and-convincing affirmative defense
Once OSHA found contributing factor, the burden shifted to Union Pacific to show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action absent the protected activity. OSHA found that Union Pacific failed to meet this burden. Union Pacific’s reliance on a “dishonesty” charge for which the principal evidence was a non-medically-trained supervisor’s observation, combined with the disparate treatment compared to the other employee, did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Union Pacific would have terminated Garza absent his protected activities.
OSHA’s identification of Union Pacific as a “serial violator” of FRSA
The OSHA Secretary’s Findings Order documented Union Pacific’s history of FRSA violations as part of its punitive damages analysis. According to the OSHA findings, OSHA has previously issued findings that Union Pacific violated FRSA twenty times, with nineteen of those cases involving punitive damages ranging from $1,000 to $250,000. Thirteen of the prior cases involved retaliation against employees for reporting work-related injuries — the same pattern present in the Garza matter. The OSHA findings also reference several Administrative Law Judge decisions that have ruled against Union Pacific in FRSA injury-reporting retaliation matters:
- Schow v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2013-FRS-00043 (ALJ Apr. 15, 2015) — Administrative Law Judge Jennifer Gee awarded $150,000 in punitive damages, finding “a culture of hostility and animus towards injury reporting at Union Pacific.”
- Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., ALJ No. 2012-FRS-39 (ALJ Apr. 22, 2013) — Administrative Law Judge Lee J. Romero Jr. awarded $25,000 in punitive damages against Union Pacific and $1,000 against an individual respondent manager.
- Petersen v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., ALJ No. 2011-FRS-00017 (ALJ Aug. 7, 2013), aff’d, ARB No. 13-090 (ARB Nov. 20, 2014) — Administrative Law Judge Pamela J. Lakes awarded $100,000 in punitive damages, characterizing Union Pacific’s conduct as among the most blatant disregard for FRSA whistleblower provisions she had seen in twenty years of whistleblower adjudication.
The OSHA findings characterize past moderate punitive damages awards against Union Pacific as having “no deterrent effect” on the carrier’s conduct. On that basis, OSHA awarded $150,000 in punitive damages in the Garza matter — substantially higher than the $1,000 to moderate-range awards in many of the earlier matters and consistent with the upper portion of the historical range.
The OSHA-ordered relief
The OSHA Secretary’s Findings Order issued August 6, 2025, ordered the following relief in favor of Garza:
- Reinstatement with all rights, seniority, and benefits. (Union Pacific had reinstated Garza on June 24, 2025, via the collective bargaining grievance process; OSHA’s order reiterates that reinstatement is also ordered under FRSA.)
- Back pay of $184,869.60 from the date of termination on March 15, 2024, through reinstatement on June 24, 2025.
- Interest on back wages of $10,428.41 as of the date of the OSHA findings, with continuing accrual under 26 U.S.C. § 6621 until payment.
- Compensatory damages of $10,000 for pain and suffering, including mental distress.
- Reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses, plus expert witness fees of $3,750.
- Punitive damages of $150,000 for reckless or callous disregard of Garza’s rights.
- Expungement of all references to Garza’s exercise of FRSA rights from his employment records.
- Restoration of benefits, including leave time, employer stock purchase plan contributions, and other benefits that would have accrued during the termination period.
- Posting of a Notice to Employees in conspicuous locations for at least 180 consecutive days.
- Distribution of the OSHA Fact Sheet “Whistleblower Protection for Railroad Workers” to all Union Pacific employees and supervisors.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(2)(B) and the OSHA whistleblower regulations at 29 C.F.R. part 1982, either party has thirty days from receipt of the Secretary’s Findings to file objections and request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Union Pacific has filed objections; the matter is now proceeding to ALJ for de novo review. The OSHA Secretary’s Findings reflect OSHA’s reasonable-cause determination based on the investigatory record; the ALJ proceeding will allow both parties to develop a full evidentiary record before a fact-finder. The damages and findings detailed above reflect the Secretary’s order; the ALJ may reach the same, lesser, or greater outcome based on the full evidentiary record developed at the ALJ hearing. Subsequent appellate review may proceed to the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board and ultimately to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Garza retains the option to exercise the 210-day kick-out under § 20109(d)(3) to federal district court at any point at which the DOL has not issued a final decision and the delay is not attributable to his own bad faith. The matter is being actively litigated.
Which railroad workers FRSA covers
FRSA’s coverage extends to employees of railroad carriers as defined in 49 U.S.C. § 20102, including contractors and subcontractors of those carriers and officers and employees acting as agents.
The major Class I freight railroads operate the nation’s primary long-haul freight rail network. Class I employees — conductors, engineers, brakemen, mechanical inspectors, track maintenance workers, signal maintainers, hazmat handlers, dispatchers, and other operating and maintenance personnel — constitute the largest segment of FRSA-covered workers and the largest share of FRSA whistleblower litigation. Class I carriers have historically been the focus of OSHA enforcement attention and FRA regulatory scrutiny around injury suppression and other retaliation patterns.
Regional railroads operating in geographic regions with substantial route miles but less than Class I scale. Class II employees are covered by FRSA on the same terms as Class I employees, though Class II carriers may operate under different labor structures and may have less developed compliance infrastructure. Pattern-of-retaliation issues sometimes appear differently at Class II carriers because of smaller workforces and tighter supervisor-worker relationships.
Shortline carriers operating local freight service, often connecting industrial customers to Class I trunk lines. Shortline employees are FRSA-covered on the same terms as Class I and Class II employees, though shortlines frequently operate without formal collective bargaining structures and with smaller workforces.
Amtrak is the national passenger rail carrier and is covered as a railroad carrier under FRSA. Amtrak employees — conductors, engineers, attendants, mechanical workers, track and structures workers, and other operating and maintenance personnel — are FRSA-covered. Amtrak FRSA matters frequently arise from the same injury-reporting, refusal-to-violate, and medical-leave patterns common at the freight carriers.
Publicly funded commuter railroads — including the major Northeast Corridor commuter systems (Metro-North, Long Island Rail Road, NJ Transit, MBTA, SEPTA, MARC, Virginia Railway Express), Midwest systems (Metra), and other regional commuter operations — are expressly FRSA-covered under § 20102’s definition of “railroad carrier.” Commuter rail employees include the full range of operating, maintenance, and support roles. The FRSA non-arbitrability provision under § 20109(e)(1) is particularly important in commuter contexts where collective bargaining arbitration provisions are common.
FRSA extends coverage to contractors and subcontractors of railroad carriers, including track construction contractors, signal contractors, mechanical service contractors, and others who perform railroad-safety-related work under contract with a railroad carrier. Contractor employees experiencing retaliation for FRSA-protected activity have the same protections as employees of the railroad carrier directly.
FRSA does not cover urban rapid transit — subways and other urban transit systems. Transit workers are protected instead under the National Transit Systems Security Act (NTSSA), 6 U.S.C. § 1142, which is also administered through OSHA but is a separate statutory framework with parallel but distinct protections. The NTSSA framework is structurally similar to FRSA (180-day OSHA filing, 210-day kick-out, AIR21 burden of proof) and the same contributing-factor analysis under Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC applies. Workers uncertain whether their employer is FRSA-covered or NTSSA-covered should consult counsel — many regional rail-and-transit systems have overlapping operations, and the coverage analysis requires specific attention.
The structural importance of FRSA in federal whistleblower enforcement
FRSA occupies a distinctive position in federal whistleblower enforcement because the railroad industry presents structural pressures that make robust anti-retaliation protection essential.
The injury-reporting suppression problem. The railroad industry has a documented history of pressure on workers to underreport on-the-job injuries. Incentive programs that reward “injury-free” workgroups, “intelligence investigations” that follow reported injuries, and discipline patterns that disproportionately target workers who report injuries all create structural incentives against injury reporting. The 2008 FRSA amendments specifically addressed the injury-suppression problem by adding § 20109(a)(4) and strengthening enforcement. The contributing-factor standard under Murray makes injury-reporting retaliation claims particularly viable.
The operational-pressure problem. Railroad operations involve relentless schedule pressure — freight movements must meet shipper commitments, passenger service must run on time, and operational targets dominate management attention. The pressure creates structural incentives for supervisors to ask workers to bypass safety procedures, falsify records, or operate equipment in marginal condition to maintain operational performance. FRSA’s refusal-to-violate provision under § 20109(a)(2) protects workers who refuse those instructions, and the contributing-factor standard makes the protection meaningful in practice.
The medical-care interference problem. Railroad work creates significant injury exposure — operating heavy equipment, working at heights, working around moving trains, and working in hazmat contexts. Workers who suffer injuries need medical care, and the carrier’s interest in returning workers to duty quickly can conflict with the worker’s medical needs. Section 20109(c)(2) protects the worker’s right to follow physician orders without retaliation — the provision is structural protection for the worker-physician relationship against carrier interference.
The procedural advantages. FRSA’s combination of the contributing-factor standard, the clear-and-convincing affirmative-defense burden, the 210-day kick-out to federal court, the non-arbitrability provision, and the fee-shifting framework creates a procedural posture that meaningfully levels the playing field between individual railroad workers and large railroad carriers. The framework is among the most plaintiff-favorable in federal employment law, and the substantive protections combine with the procedural advantages to make FRSA a powerful tool for railroad workers experiencing safety-related retaliation.
How the firm approaches FRSA matters
Doyle Dennis Avery LLP represents railroad workers and other transportation workers in federal whistleblower retaliation matters across the OSHA whistleblower-statute family — FRSA, STAA (the surface transportation truck driver analog), NTSSA (transit), SOX (publicly traded company employees), FSMA (food safety), and other AIR21-burden-shifting frameworks. The firm’s federal whistleblower practice is selective by design — these matters are most successful where the documentary record supports the contributing-factor inference under Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, where the worker’s damages model is substantial enough to justify the federal litigation investment, where the protected activity is clearly within the statutory scope, and where the carrier’s response to the protected activity meets standards supporting substantial compensatory and (where appropriate) punitive damages.
Two of the firm’s named partners are board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Jeffrey Avery is board certified in Labor and Employment Law. Michael Patrick Doyle is board certified in Personal Injury Trial Law. The firm’s FRSA intake process typically begins with a confidential initial consultation focused on the protected-activity timeline, the adverse-action timeline, the documentary record (personnel file, injury reports, internal communications, comparator workers, carrier policies and procedures), the contributing-factor causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action, the damages model (back pay, front pay, emotional distress, punitive theory), and the procedural posture (OSHA filing status, 180-day deadline analysis, 210-day kick-out timing).
The firm’s FRSA practice frequently coordinates with the firm’s other employment practices because federal whistleblower cases often arise alongside other claims. FRSA retaliation may coincide with FELA injury claims (the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., which governs railroad worker injury claims and is a separate framework from FRSA whistleblower protection), with workers’ compensation matters in jurisdictions where state workers’ compensation applies to railroad workers, with disability discrimination claims under the ADA, with race discrimination claims under § 1981, Title VII, and Chapter 21, and with other employment claims that the firm handles concurrently. The multi-statute coordination is a core feature of the firm’s approach to complex employment litigation. Where the matter meets the firm’s criteria, representation proceeds on a contingency basis with the firm advancing litigation costs.
The firm’s pending Federal Rail Safety Act matter on behalf of locomotive engineer Juan Garza against Union Pacific Railroad Company and two of its managers. The OSHA Secretary’s Findings Order issued August 6, 2025, found reasonable cause to believe Union Pacific violated FRSA, 49 U.S.C. § 20109, by terminating Garza for reporting an on-duty injury and following the treatment plan of his treating physician. OSHA identified six discrete protected activities under § 20109(a)(4) and (c)(2), found that Union Pacific’s protected-activity-aware adverse actions constituted contributing-factor retaliation, and found that Union Pacific failed to meet the clear-and-convincing affirmative-defense burden. The Order awarded: $184,869.60 in back pay (March 15, 2024 through June 24, 2025 reinstatement); $10,428.41 in interest on back wages with continuing accrual under 26 U.S.C. § 6621; $10,000 in compensatory damages for pain and suffering including mental distress; $150,000 in punitive damages for reckless or callous disregard of Garza’s rights; reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses; and $3,750 in expert witness fees. The Order also required expungement of FRSA-related references from Garza’s employment records, restoration of benefits, and posting of a 180-day Notice to Employees at Union Pacific facilities. The OSHA findings documented Union Pacific’s history as a “serial violator” of FRSA, citing twenty prior OSHA findings of FRSA violation against Union Pacific (thirteen of which involved injury-reporting retaliation) and three published ALJ decisions awarding punitive damages of $25,000 to $150,000 in earlier Union Pacific FRSA matters. Union Pacific has filed objections; ALJ proceedings pending.
The firm represents workers in federal whistleblower retaliation matters across the OSHA-administered statute family that shares FRSA’s AIR21 contributing-factor / clear-and-convincing burden-shifting framework — FRSA (railroad), STAA (truck driver and commercial motor vehicle), NTSSA (transit), SOX (publicly traded company), FSMA (food safety), CPSIA (consumer products), and other AIR21-framework statutes. The shared procedural architecture (180-day OSHA filing, OSHA investigation, ALJ hearing, ARB review, 210-day kick-out to federal district court) and the shared substantive standards under Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. 23 (2024), make the firm’s experience across the broader OSHA whistleblower-statute family directly applicable to FRSA matters.
Whistleblower retaliation matter with a damages framework directly transferable to FRSA litigation. The willful violation finding and the resulting damages structure — past wages, future wages, fee shifting, willful enhancement — illustrate the available range when the employer’s conduct meets enhanced damages standards. The whistleblower framework, the causation analysis, the documentary record-building, and the damages structure all transfer directly to FRSA contributing-factor litigation. The verdict’s structure — substantial compensatory damages alongside fee-shifting and enhanced damages — illustrates the damages range achievable when retaliation matters proceed to final judgment after full evidentiary development.
The firm’s federally funded program retaliation matter implicating the NDAA § 4712 federal contractor whistleblower framework and Texas state-law parallel protections. The Children’s Home matter is structurally analogous to FRSA in that both involve federal anti-retaliation protection for workers reporting violations of federal safety/program regulations, both apply contributing-factor or comparable plaintiff-favorable causation standards, and both proceed through specialized federal administrative or judicial frameworks. The firm’s experience with the federal whistleblower framework’s procedural and evidentiary requirements transfers directly to FRSA practice.
The firm’s verdict in a Texas Labor Code § 451 retaliation matter — affirmed by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals; petition for review denied by the Texas Supreme Court. While § 451 is a Texas state-law framework rather than a federal whistleblower framework, the damages structure — substantial compensatory damages plus seven-figure exemplary damages on a gross negligence finding — illustrates the damages range available in egregious-conduct employment retaliation matters generally. The “reckless or callous disregard” punitive damages standard under FRSA is structurally analogous to the gross negligence finding supporting exemplary damages under Texas common law.
The firm’s employment practice routinely coordinates federal whistleblower claims under FRSA, STAA, SOX, FSMA, NTSSA, and other OSHA-administered statutes with other federal employment frameworks (Title VII, § 1981, ADA, ADEA, FMLA, § 1983, FCA), with Texas Labor Code § 451 workers’ compensation retaliation, with Texas Health & Safety Code § 161.134 healthcare retaliation, with Texas Occupations Code § 301.413 Nurse Practice Act retaliation, with Sabine Pilot refused-illegal-act claims, with FELA (the Federal Employers’ Liability Act) for railroad injury claims, and with Texas common-law frameworks. The multi-statute analysis is a core feature of the firm’s approach to complex employment litigation.
What railroad workers ask about FRSA
What is the Federal Rail Safety Act?
What is the contributing-factor standard under FRSA?
What is the OSHA filing deadline for an FRSA complaint?
What is the 210-day kick-out provision?
What activities are protected under FRSA?
Can FRSA claims be sent to arbitration?
Does FRSA protect injury reporting?
Does FRSA protect following a doctor’s orders?
What damages are available under FRSA?
Which railroad workers are covered by FRSA?
Does FRSA coordinate with other federal whistleblower statutes?
The Federal Rail Safety Act protects railroad workers from retaliation. 180-day OSHA filing deadline.
If you are a railroad worker — Class I freight, Class II/III shortline, Amtrak, commuter rail, or railroad contractor — who has been disciplined, demoted, terminated, or otherwise subjected to adverse personnel action because you reported a safety hazard, refused to violate federal railroad safety regulations, reported a work-related injury, followed your treating physician’s orders, accurately reported hours on duty, or engaged in other FRSA-protected activity, you may have a claim under 49 U.S.C. § 20109. FRSA’s contributing-factor causation standard under Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC does not require proof of retaliatory intent or animus, and the clear-and-convincing affirmative-defense burden places a steep evidentiary burden on the carrier. The firm represents Texas locomotive engineer Juan Garza in his pending FRSA matter against Union Pacific Railroad Company — the OSHA Secretary’s Findings Order issued August 6, 2025, found reasonable cause to believe Union Pacific violated FRSA and awarded back pay, interest, compensatory damages, $150,000 in punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and expert witness fees (Union Pacific has filed objections; ALJ proceedings pending). FRSA claims must be filed with OSHA within 180 days of the retaliation — the deadline is strictly enforced. Prompt counsel consultation is essential to preserve all available rights and to evaluate the 210-day kick-out timing to federal district court.
Speak with our team →