Listen to the article
3 minutes

This sound is generated automatically. Please let us know if you have any feedback.

Diving:

• A U.S. district court rejected Union Pacific Railroad Co.’s claim. to dismiss a driver’s claims that the company fired him, rehired him, then “unilaterally” forced him to extend his unpaid sick leave for reporting a potential shooting at the scene and walked away, according to a month case by US District Judge Donald Walter.
• The employee reported an unsafe work environment and requested sick leave after allegedly hearing what sounded like three gunshots near where he worked. Union Pacific later fired the worker, claiming he had failed to file the proper paperwork for his sick leave, but later reinstated him after receiving documents from his counsel, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Shreveport from Louisiana. .
• Judge Walter denied the motion to dismiss because “evidence of the bullet holes in the derailleur switch indicator combined with the testimony” of the worker and another worker who was nearby at the time of the alleged incident, as well as other arguments, showed “there is no complete absence of evidentiary facts to support (the worker’s) position”. Union Pacific did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Diving Perspective:

In the lawsuit, the conductor alleged that Union Pacific violated the Federal Employers’ Liability Act “by negligently and negligently failing to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work,” which led to a resulting post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis from the alleged shooting.

In its motion for summary judgment, Union Pacific argued that the worker’s emotional distress claim was invalid because he was “well outside the danger zone.”

The worker also pleaded two counts of adverse retaliation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. He claimed the company fired him after he made several reports about the shooting and refused to work at the rail yard under “hazardous safety or security conditions” and that Union Pacific did not allow him to return to work for several months, during which time a has not been paid, after canceling his termination.

The company, in its motion for summary judgment, denied that there was any connection between the worker’s termination and the alleged shooting and instead argued that the termination was related to his failure to provide the proper medical records.