Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02670/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02670-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Torres
Plaintiff
Union Pacific Railroad Company
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RAFAEL TORRES,

NO. CIV. S-04-2670 FCD GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On September 29, 2006, the court held the final pretrial

conference in this matter. At said conference, it became

apparent to the court that the parties disputed a central legal

issue in this case: whether plaintiff could recover under the

Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et

seq., future lost wages that accrued after his discharge from the

defendant railroad company. The court determined that resolution

of this legal issue prior to trial was necessary. The parties

also indicated that they believed resolution of the issue may

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02670-FCD-GGH Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The parties agreed to attend a settlement conference

before Magistrate Judge Hollows on November 27, 2006; that

conference was later continued due to the parties’

unavailability; it is now scheduled before Magistrate Judge Drozd

on December 21, 2006.

2 However, after reviewing the parties’ submissions, the

court finds that oral argument will not be of material

assistance, and therefore it submits the matter on the papers. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

3 The court set the matter for a further final pretrial

conference on December 8, 2006. However, in light of the

continued date for the settlement conference, the court continues

the final pretrial conference and trial, as set forth below.

4 Ex. 2 to Joint Pretrial Conf. Stmt., filed Sept. 22,

2006.

2

assist in their settlement negotiations.1

 As such, the court

postponed issuing a final pretrial conference order and set a

briefing schedule and hearing date for a formal motion on the

issue.2 (Minute Order, filed Sept. 29, 2006.)3

By the instant order, the court now issues its decision,

finding that plaintiff may seek future lost wages accruing after

his termination because his FELA claim asserted herein relates to

the personal injuries he sustained in the subject accident rather

than his termination. 

In this action, plaintiff Rafael Torres brings a claim under

FELA for injuries he sustained during the course and scope of his

employment for defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. 

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that while operating a handbrake

on a railroad car the connection chain broke, causing him to lose

his balance and injure his neck. Pursuant to a “Stipulated

Admission of Negligence,”4 defendant concedes its negligence

under FELA because the subject chain on the handbrake failed

during the incident; defendant also concedes plaintiff was not

Case 2:04-cv-02670-FCD-GGH Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 The RLA provides a comprehensive framework for the

resolution of labor disputes in the railroad industry. In

general, the RLA deals with railroad employee disputes arising

out of the formation or interpretation of collective bargaining

agreements. See Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 562-63 (1987).

6 A PLB is composed of a labor member, a railroad member,

and a neutral member and serves as an arbitral tribunal that

reviews the outcome of a railroad’s investigative hearing to

ascertain whether the result is consonant with the terms of the

parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Kulavic v. Chicago &

Illinois Midland Ry. Co., 1 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 1993).

3

negligent in the incident. However, defendant denies that

plaintiff suffered any injury during the incident or that the

incident was a cause of plaintiff’s alleged injury. Defendant

also disputes the nature and extent of plaintiff’s alleged

injury, and affirmatively alleges that plaintiff has failed to

mitigate his damages, if any, as required by FELA. Thus, this

matter proceeds to trial only as to the issues of causation and

damages.

With respect to the issue of damages, defendant argues that

the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) precludes plaintiff from recovering

lost wages accruing subsequent to his termination. Following an

administrative hearing pursuant to the RLA,5 defendant terminated

plaintiff on September 23, 2004. Plaintiff was terminated for

dishonesty, having been found to have exaggerated the extent of

his personal injuries sustained in the subject incident. 

Plaintiff administratively appealed his termination but the

termination was affirmed by a Public Law Board (“PLB”)6 on

February 10, 2006. Defendant contends that these administrative

proceedings conducted by the railroad pursuant to the RLA bar

plaintiff’s claim for lost wages accruing after his discharge for

Case 2:04-cv-02670-FCD-GGH Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 In Wharf v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 60 F.3d

631, 635 (9th Cir. 1993), the court simply recognized that the

RLA does not limit an employee’s injury-related damages. Such

damages may include loss earnings so long as the “loss of

earnings was caused by [the railroad’s] negligence.” Id. at 638. 

In Wharf, the plaintiff employee was terminated by the railroad

during the closing arguments of the FELA trial. Id. at 634. As

such, Wharf did not involve the question of whether a PLB

decision affirming an employee’s discharge precluded recovery for

lost wages accruing subsequent to the termination.

4

dishonesty.

The court does not agree. Preliminarily, the court notes

that, contrary to defendant’s arguments, there is no Ninth

Circuit authority directly on point.7

 As such, the court applies

herein authority from other jurisdictions which have addressed

the precise question at issue. In particular, the court finds

the decision in Pothul v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 94 F. Supp. 2d

269 (N.D. N.Y. 2000) persuasive. There, the railroad moved for

partial summary judgment precluding the plaintiff from seeking

recovery under FELA for future wages and benefits that accrued

after his discharge from the company for insubordination. Id.

Like defendant here, the railroad in Pothul argued “‘[i]t would

be a miscarriage of justice to allow a man found guilty of

insubordination-and consequently dismissed-to seek to recover

future lost wages he has no right or opportunity to accrue.’” 

Id. at 271. The district court disagreed, holding that:

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02670-FCD-GGH Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 FELA provides a federal remedy for railroad workers who

suffer personal injuries as a result of the negligence of their

employer or their fellow employees. Buell, 480 U.S. at 561. In

pertinent part, FELA provides: “[e]very . . . railroad . . .

shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while

he is employed by any such carrier in such commerce . . . for

such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the

negligence of the officers, agents, or employees of such

carrier.” 45 U.S.C. § 51 (1986).

9 The plaintiff in Pothul was charged with

insubordination for failing to attend a scheduled medical

evaluation, which was intended to determine the nature and extent

of the plaintiff’s injuries from the accident. Id. at 270. 

5

Because Plaintiff brings a claim pursuant to FELA8

to recover future lost wages and benefits related

to his personal injuries rather than his termination,

that claim is not barred based on the previous

disciplinary hearing conducted by [the railroad]

pursuant to the RLA.

Id. at 272 (emphasis added). 

Critical to the court in Pothul was the fact that the

plaintiff did not seek to relitigate the issue of his dismissal

for insubordination.9 Rather, by his FELA claim, he sought to

“‘recover damages he sustained in an accident that occurred in

the course of his employment.’” Id. at 271. In that regard, he

sought to recover, inter alia, future lost wages and benefits he

would have earned with the defendant had he not been injured and

become permanently disabled. Id. at 272. As such, the court

held that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was based only “on personal

injuries, not wrongful termination,” and accordingly was not

barred by the RLA proceedings. Id. (citing Buell, 480 U.S. at

564-67 [holding employee’s claim for personal injuries falls

under FELA not the RLA]); accord Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v.

Schumpert, 270 Ga. App. 782, 787 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (finding no

error in the trial court’s admission of the plaintiff’s possible

Case 2:04-cv-02670-FCD-GGH Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10 The plaintiff in Norfolk was terminated for not

reporting the accident and for misrepresenting the reason he had

missed work. Id.

6

future earnings from the railroad despite plaintiff’s termination

eight months after the injury for violating company policies).10

The New York district court’s opinion in Pothul is in accord

with other courts that have considered similar issues. For

example, in Kulavic v. Chicago & Illinois Midland Ry. Co., the

Seventh Circuit considered whether an arbitral decision under the

RLA upholding an employee’s discharge had any preclusive effect

on the employee’s claim under FELA. 1 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 1993). 

Applying principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, the

court held that the railroad had not demonstrated that the

procedures provided by the RLA “were sufficiently protective” of

the plaintiff’s rights and thus, the RLA proceedings could have

no preclusive effect on the FELA action. Id. at 517. In so

holding, the court remanded the matter for a new trial on damages

in accordance with the opinion. Id. at 520. Previously, the

trial court barred the employee from seeking lost earnings,

fringe benefits, and loss of earning capacity after his

discharge. Id. at 512. Pursuant to the Seventh Circuit’s

decision, such damages would now, presumably, be recoverable as

the RLA proceedings were held to have no preclusive effect on the

employee’s FELA claim. Accord Graves v. Burlington Northern &

Santa Fe Ry. Co., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (E.D. Okl. 1999) (finding

that the plaintiff’s claim under FELA for personal injuries

caused by the defendant’s negligence was not barred by the

previous RLA disciplinary hearing finding the employee filed a

Case 2:04-cv-02670-FCD-GGH Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11 In so holding, the court expressly rejected the Second

Circuit’s decision in Sharkey v. Penn Central Transp. Co., 293

F.2d 685 (2nd Cir. 1974), also relied on by defendant. Lewy, 799

F.2d at 1294.

7

false injury report).

Defendant’s authorities, cited to the contrary, are

distinguishable. In Lewy v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 799

F.2d 1281 (9th Cir. 1986), the railroad employee, who was injured

in a collision and subsequently discharged, brought an action

under FELA against the railroad to recover for injuries sustained

in the collision and for aggravation of those injuries resulting

from the discharge. Id. at 1287. The Ninth Circuit held that

the plaintiff’s latter discharge-related damages were not

recoverable under FELA as the RLA’s administrative grievance and

arbitral procedures provide the “exclusive remedy” for wrongful

discharge claims. Id. at 1294.11 Here, plaintiff does not

allege such damages. Indeed, his claim, like the plaintiff in

Pothul, seeks recovery for his personal injuries sustained in the

accident not any injury attributable to his subsequent

termination.

As the court finds that the RLA proceedings do not bar

plaintiff’s claim for future lost wages accruing subsequent to

his termination, the court likewise finds that the fact of

plaintiff’s termination, and the reasons therefor, are

inadmissible in this action. Fed. Evid. R. 403. Such evidence

is excludable as unduly prejudicial because plaintiff was

discharged for conduct involving the very injuries he seeks

recovery for in this action. 

Case 2:04-cv-02670-FCD-GGH Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Moreover, were the court to allow defendant to introduce

evidence concerning plaintiff’s termination, FELA’s purposes

would be directly subverted. FELA provides railroad employees

with the right to seek recovery in federal court for injuries

sustained by a railroad’s negligence. Here, plaintiff’s

termination was based on the precise incident and claimed

injuries at issue in this case. Thus, any reference to said

administrative proceedings and findings would invade the province

of the jury. In this regard, Graves, discussed above, is most

factually on point. There, the plaintiff was terminated for

filing a false injury report involving the subject incident. 77

F. Supp. 2d at 1217. Particularly in cases like this one and

Graves, there are clear grounds to exclude evidence of the

termination since the very same issues are being litigated in the

FELA action. 

Now that this dispositive legal issue is resolved (and

related evidentiary issues), the court will conduct a further

final pretrial conference on January 26, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. The

parties are directed to file a revised joint final pretrial

conference statement, considering the court’s orders herein, on

or before January 19, 2007. Trial of this matter is continued to

April 10, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: November 17, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-02670-FCD-GGH Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 8 of 8