Course: HRM5020: labor Laws and Ethical Standards

Topic: Gilbert v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 19-cv-804 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2022) (2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88503; 2022 WL 1556101),

Summary of the case: In Gilbert v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 19-cv-804 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2022) (2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88503; 2022 WL 1556101), the court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's FELA and FRSA claims. The court ruled on the motion based on the facts in the light most favor to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff worked as a conductor on commuter train, and was injured in an altercation while removing an unruly passenger. During the altercation, Plaintiff punched the passenger after the passenger had chest bumped him and continued to advance on Plaintiff. Plaintiff was transported to a hospital for a CTS scan to evaluate a head injury, and the trainmaster informed Defendant's Director of Road Operations about the incident and the hospitalization, who in turn relayed the information to Defendant's Superintendent of Operations - who visited Plaintiff in the hospital and told him that he had done nothing wrong as he was merely defending himself. After discharge, Plaintiff went to Defendant's office and spoke to a risk management representative who completed an injury report stating that Plaintiff had sustained injuries and received treatment.

Plaintiff then discussed the incident with the Director of Road Operations who also said Plaintiff had done nothing wrong by defending himself, and that they would see each other on Monday. Plaintiff indicated to this official that he was not injured. Plaintiff also spoke to his supervisor, who completed a manager's accident/injury report stating that Plaintiff had sustained injuries and received treatment. That night, Defendant's managers determined that the incident merited a formal investigation. The next day (a Saturday), Plaintiff went to a care facility and was told by a physician that he should not return to work due to his injuries. The following day, Plaintiff requested medical leave, which was temporarily approved pending paperwork. Later that day, however, when Plaintiff called in for relief from duty on Monday, the paperwork had not been received and he was told that he would have to use sick time. After advising his managers that he was seeking a medical leave of absence, their attitude toward him and the incident changed, and he was pulled from service. Defendant has a "zero tolerance" policy concerning violence in the workplace. An investigation ensued, and Plaintiff was terminated from employment. Later, the National Mediation Board found that the evidence did not support a finding that Plaintiff violated Defendant's work rules, and Plaintiff was reinstated.

Defendant first argued in its summary judgment motion that there was no evidence that the supervisors who decided to terminate Plaintiff knew that he had reported his injury or requested a medical leave of absence, citing caselaw from other circuits that such knowledge must be tied to the decisionmaker involved in the unfavorable personnel action. The court, however, determined that the standard in the Seventh Circuit is that "an FRSA retaliation plaintiff must show only that 'the rail carrier knew of the [plaintiff's] complaint.'" Slip op. at 12, citing and quoting Armstrong v. BNSF Ry. Co., 880 F.3d 377, 381 (7th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). The court stated:

• Circuit law therefore does not require Gilbert to prove, as part of his prima facie case, that the particular individuals who terminated him knew about his injury report. And it is undisputed that Union Pacific as an entity knew of Gilbert's injury report and request for medical leave, both of which he made through official Union Pacific channels.

Id. (records citation omitted). The court also ruled that even if knowledge was required on the part of the decision-making supervisors, the record contained sufficient circumstantial evidence to survive summary judgment.

Defendant also moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence that his injury report or leave request played any role in his termination. The court, however, found that Plaintiff's observation that his supervisors' "behavior changed markedly after he reported his injury and requested a medical leave, from assuring him that he had done nothing wrong and had nothing to worry about to determining that his role in the incident warranted termination" (Id. at 13)was sufficient in itself to survive summary judgment. The court also stated that "the fact that the National Mediation Board found that Gilbert had not violated any rule that he had been terminated for violating . . . , further suggests that Union Pacific's justification for firing him was pretextual." Id. at 13-14 (record citation omitted).

Similarly, the court found that there was sufficient evidence that Plaintiff's evidence had not been initially considered to have violated the zero-tolerance policy because Plaintiff had been defending himself, that Defendant could not show by clear and convincing evidence (at least on summary judgment) that it would have terminated Plaintiff's employment regardless of his injury report.

Questions:

1. Come up with a creative Topic

2. Introduction and thesis statement

3. Identify the parties involved in the OSHA violation and provide the factual details of the event, which led to litigation.

rewrite question be creative

please give an detailed explanation

please not short answers very important

please for citing sources use south university online library

please give long detailed explanation

4. Analyze the facts and apply the OSHA regulations for whistle-blowers.

rewrite question be creative

please give an detailed explanation

please not short answers very important

please for citing sources use south university online library

please give long detailed explanation

5. Analyze the facts and determine if the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) applies to the organization.

rewrite question be creative

please give an detailed explanation

please not short answers very important

please for citing sources use south university online library

please give long detailed explanation

6. Justify your view on what should have been done to prevent the OSHA violation as well as provide your advice and best OSHA practices to avoid future OSHA violations and litigations.

rewrite question be creative

please give an detailed explanation

please not short answers very important

please for citing sources use south university online library

please give long detailed explanation

7. Conclusion

please give an detailed explanation

please not short answers very important

*Please make sure to number each answer with question