# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 29 05

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Pau l Gu nd ers on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

BNSF Ra il way

Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 16
Fil ed : M arch 10 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Pau l Gun de rs on ap pe al s th e di st r i c t c o ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t 1

di sm is si ng hi s co m

pl ai nt all eg in g t ha t BNSF Rai lway Co

. vi ol at ed th e Fed eral Rai l

Safe ty Act (“ FRSA” ), 49 U.S.C. § 20 10 9, whe n it f i r e d G u nd ers on in 20 09 fo r

The Hon or ab le Pat ric k J. Sch il tz

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.ha ras si ng a co -wo rk er an d th reat en in g a su pe rv is or

. Gun de rs on al le ge s th at th e real

reas on fo r hi s te rm in at io n was un la wfu l r e t a l i at io n fo r hi s pr io r FRSA- pr ot ect ed

a c t i vi ty, an in

jury rep or t an d y ears of sa fet y ad vo cacy. A Dep art m en t o f La b o r (“ DOL”) ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge (“ ALJ”) di sm is se d Gun de rs on ’s FRSA co m pl ai nt

on th e m eri ts fo ll owi ng ex te ns iv e di sc ov ery an d a si x- da y ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Gun de rs on th en fil ed th is de no vo act io n un de r th e FRSA’s “ ki ck -o ut ” pr ov is io n, 49

U.S.C. § 20 10 9( d) (3 ). The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed BNSF’s m ot io n to di sm is s bu t, at th e

en d of di sc ov ery, gr an te d BNSF s u m m ary jud gm en t on th e m eri ts an d di sm is se d

Gun de rs on ’s com

pl ai nt wit h p reju di ce. Rev ie win g t he gra nt of s um m ary jud gm en t

de no vo , we affi rm

. 2

I. Ba ck gr ou nd.

A. T he Dis ci pl in ar y Ba ck dro p. Gun de rs on wor ke d fo r BNSF a t it s y ard in

W il lm ar, Mi nn es ot a, as a br ak em an , c o n d uc to r, swi tc hm an , an d rem ot e-co nt ro l

op erat or , fro m 19 89 un ti l BNSF te rm in at ed hi m in Aug us t 20 0 9 f o r h a ras si ng an d

in ti m id at in g a co -wo rk e r a n d th reat en in g a su pe rv is or

. Gun de rs on was act iv e in

Loc al 11 77 of th e Uni te d Tran sp or ta ti on Uni on (“ UTU”), be co m in g lo cal ch ai rm an

fo r th e W il lm ar Yard in 20 05

, an d al so se rv in g as vi ce ge ne ral ch ai rm an of th e

in te rn at io na l un io n. His un io n du ti es i n c l ud ed rep res en ti ng fel lo w wor ke rs in

W il lm ar accu se d of ru le s vi ol at io ns

. Afte r Mi ch ael Bab ik be cam e Su pe rin te nd en t of
Ope rat io ns in W il lm ar in 20 08

, Gun de rs on an d Bab ik m et al m os t weekl y reg ard in g

la bo r-m an ag em en t i ss ue s, ca us in g t en si on at t im es

.

Pri or to or al arg um en t, th e Ass oc ia ti on of Am eri can Rai lro ad s (“ AAR”) fil ed 2

a co nt es te d m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e a br ie f as ami cu s cu ri ae in su pp or t of BNSF. W e
to ok th e m ot io n for co ns id erat io n wit h th e cas e an d no w gr an t AAR le av e to fil e it s br ie f. See F.R .A.P. Rul e 2 9.

-2

-In Mar ch 20 09

, two W il lm ar co -wo rk ers , Mi tc he ll Du k e a n d Ro be rt Cl uk a,

co m pl ai ne d th at y ard m as te r Dav id Pet ers on ha d im pr op erl y ob ta in ed an d pu bl is he d

th ei r pe rs on ne l in fo rm at io n. BNSF s erv ed Pet ers on wit h a Not ic e o f In ve st ig at io n.
Wh e n G un de rs on to ld Bab ik he was th in ki ng of rep res en ti ng Pet ers on , Bab i k

al le ge dl y sa id

, “ st ay away f r o m t hi s

. . . if y ou ge t in vo lv ed y ou co ul d be ne xt .”

Gun de rs on be li ev ed th at Bab ik was an gr y be cau se Gun de rs on an d an o t h e r u n i on

of fic ia l, St ev e Ma ce, “ ke ep be at in g t he carr ie r” i n i nv es ti ga ti on s.

B. Firs t In ve st ig at io n of Gund ers on

. In May 20 09

, Loc al 11 77 pr es id en t

Dou g Cam

pe n in fo rm ed Bab ik th at Gun de rs on an d Mac e were pr es su rin g un io n

m em be rs Duk e an d Cl uk a to reca nt th ei r al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t Pet ers on

. Cam pe n sa id

Gun de rs on ha d us ed “ in ti m id at io n an d sc are ta ct ic s,” te ll in g Duk e he sh ou ld be “ ve ry

ne rv ou s.” Cam

pe n al so sa id th at Mac e ha d as ke d C l u k a t o wit hd raw hi s st at em en t

ag ai ns t Pet e r s o n

. Bab ik im m ed ia te ly no ti fie d hi s su pe rv is or , Twin Ci ti es Div is io n

Gen eral Man ag er Ri ch ard Ebe l, who ob ta in ed writ te n st at em en ts fro m Duk e, Cl uk a,

an d C am pe n.

Duk e ’s st at em en t accu se d Gun de rs on of sa y in g th at “ th in gs co ul d ge t real ly

ba d” if Duk e di d n o t w i t h dr aw hi s accu sa ti on s ag ai ns t Pet ers on -- Duk e co ul d face

a la wsu it by Pet ers on an d co ul d be fir ed

. Gun de rs on al so ad vi se d th at Duk e co ul d

ge t a la rg e se tt le m en t fro m BNSF ov e r a pr ev io us in jury if Duk e “ pl ay ed hi s card s rig ht .” Gun de rs on in vi te d Duk e to hi s ho us e, whe re Gun de rs on ga ve Duk e a le tt er

to si gn reca nt in g h is all eg at io ns ag ai ns t Pe te rs on . Duk e rep or te d t ha t s om eo ne ha d
pl aced ga rb ag e in hi s pi ck up tru ck an d fil le d it s ga s ta nk wit h di es el

. Duk e st at ed

, “ I

am co nc ern ed fo r m

y sa fet y at wor k, I’m afra id th ere wil l be ret al ia ti on by ot he r un io n

m em be rs an d Gun de rs on .” Cl uk a’s st at em en t al le ge d t h a t h e en co un te red Mac e in

a gr oc ery st or e, as ke d fo r ge ne ral ad vi ce ab ou t se rv in g as a wit ne ss in a di sc ip li na ry
he ari ng , and was a sk ed by Mace t o re can t h is accu sa ti on ag ai ns t Pe te rs on

.

-3

-Bas ed up on th es e st at em en ts

, Ebe l de ci de d to in ve st ig at e Gun de rs on an d Mac e

fo r vi ol at in g Ru le 1.6 of BNSF’s Gen eral Co de of Ope rat in g Ru le s an d it s Vio le nc e 3

in th e W or kp la ce Po li cy , whi ch p ro hi bi ts th reat en in g be ha vi or , in cl ud in g “ ve rb al

,

no nv erb al

, or writ te n th reat s or in ti m id at io n, ex pl ic it or su bt le .” Befo re pr oc eed in g,
Ebe l co nt act ed Ja m es Hur lb ur t, di rect or of em pl oyee pe rfo rm an ce, who was in ch arg e

of rev ie win g BNSF di sc ip li na ry act io ns na ti on wid e to en su re co ns is te nt ap pl ic at io n

of th e co m

p a n y’ s Po li cy fo r Em

pl oyee Perf

or m an ce an d Acco un ta bi li ty (PEPA).

Hur lb ur t, sta ti on ed in Fo rt W or th

, Tex as , ha d n o p rio r co nt act wit h Gun de rs on

. He

reco m m en de d in it ia ti ng an in ve st ig at io n an d rem ov in g Gun de rs on fro m se rv ic e du e

to th e “ eg reg io us ” le ve l of ha ras sm en t al l e g e d

, a n d be cau se of th e “ in cred ib ly

un us ua l” si tu at io n pr es en te d by a un io n pr es id en t br in gi ng t o manag em en t a

c o mp la in t ag ai ns t a un io n m em be r. Mi lt on Si eg el e, in BNSF’s la bo r rel at io n s
de pa rtment, co nc ur red

. W it h th e ap pr ov al of hi s su pe rv is or , Ebe l th en is su ed Not ic es

of In ve st ig at io n to Gun de rs on an d Mac e an d wit hh el d bo th fro m se rv ic e pe nd in g th e

in ve st ig at io ns

.

C. Seco nd I nv es tig at io n. Ebe l d ire ct ed W il lm ar Term in al Man ag er Herb ert

Bea m to se rv e Gun de rs on wit h th e Not ic e of In ve st ig at io n an d or de red BNSF

res ou rce pr ot ect io n of

fic ers to be pr es en t be cau se of th e vo la ti le si tu at io n at th e

W il lm ar Yard

. Offi cers Eric Co ll in s an d Sco tt Po un ds to ne , who ha d ne ve r he ard of

Gun de rs on or h i s pr ot ect ed act iv it ie s, tra ve le d to W il lm ar an d wait ed acro ss th e

ha ll way fro m Bea m ’s of

fic e, ou t of si gh t bu t whe re th ey co ul d he ar th e co nv ers at io n,
whi le Bea m de li ve red th e Not ic e to Gun de rs on

. A fte r rece iv in g th e Not ic e,

Gun de rs on to ld Bea m , “ Herb

, y ou k n o w , I ’m no t jus t a lo cal [u ni on ]

ch ai rm an

. . . . So m et im es th in gs can co m e ba ck to hu rt y ou .” W he n B eam ret ur ne d

to hi s of fic e aft er es co rti ng Gun de rs on fro m th e bu il di ng , th e s e c u rit y of fic ers sa id

Ru le 1.6 pr ov id es th at “ [a]ny act of ho st il it y [o r] m is co nd uc t,

. . . affe ct in g th e 3

in te res t of th e co m

pa ny or it s em

pl oyees is cau se fo r di sm is sa l an d m us t be rep or te d.”

-4

-he ne ed ed to writ e a st at em en t de sc r i bi ng wha t th ey reg ard ed as a th reat by

Gun de rs on

. Bea m se nt an em ai l de sc rib in g th e in ci de nt to Bab ik an d Ebe l, an d Ebe l

rece iv ed a fo rm al rep or t fro m Co ll in s an d Po un ds to ne co nf irming Bea m ’s a cco un t.

St ev en Klu g, Sen io r Vice Pres id en t of Hum an Res ou rces , r ead th is de sc rip ti on an d

co nc lu de d it warra nt ed ad di ti on al in ve st ig at io n as an “ in te nt io na l at t e mp t to

in ti mi d at e an d th reat en .” Hur lb ur t an d Si eg el e ad vi se d th is was a se rio us ev en t

warra nt in g s ep arat e in ve st ig at io n. Eb el ser ve d a sec on d No ti ce o f In ve st ig at io n.

D. Dis ci pl in ar y He ar in gs. BN SF ’ s co lle ct ive ba rg ai nin g ag re em en t wit h UTU

pr ov id ed th at th e co m

pa ny m us t pr ov e di sc ip li na ry vi ol at io ns at a fo rm al ad ve rs ari al

he ari ng

. At a m eet in g to pr ep are fo r Gun de rs on ’s se pa rat e he ari n g s, on e of fic er

no te d, “ we ab ov e al l wan t Gun de rs on , ” r e f e rri ng to th e se rio us ne ss of hi s al le ge d

m is co nd uc t, co m

pa red to Mac e’s. The fir st he ari ng , on Aug us t 12

, 20 09

, co nc ern ed

Gun de rs on ’s al le ge d ha ras sm en t of Duk e. W it ne ss es in cl ud ed Gun de rs on , Cam pe n,
Duk e, Bab ik

, Pet ers on , an d Mace

. Gun de rs on de ni ed ha ras si ng Duk e, cl ai m ed th at

Duk e ap pr oa ch ed hi m as ki ng fo r he lp in reca nt in g, bu t ad m it te d th at he de li ve red th e

reca nt at io n le tt er to Duk e as a fav or to Pet ers on ’s at to rn ey

. Duk e te st ifi ed

, co ns is te nt

wit h hi s writ te n st at em en t, th at Gun de rs on pr es su red hi m to reca nt on m ul ti pl e

oc cas io ns , an d th at he su ffer ed pa ni c at ta ck s an d dr ead ed co m in g to wor k as a res ul t

of th e ha ras sm en t. Th e s e c on d he ari ng , co nc ern in g th e al le ge d th reat ag ai ns t

Term in al Man ag er Bea m , w a s he ld th e ne xt da y

. Bea m , Co ll in s, an d Po un ds to ne

te st ifi ed th at Gun de rs on to ld Bea m th at th e i n v es ti ga ti on co ul d co m e ba ck to hu rt

Bea m , an d each te st ifi ed th at he in te rp ret ed th is as a th reat

. Gun de rs on te st ifi ed th at

he co ul d no t rem em

be r whe th er or n o t he m ad e th e st at em en t to Bea m

. Afte r each

he ari n g , t h e h e a rin g of

fic er se nt th e tra ns cri pt an d reco rd to Ebe l fo r a de ci si on
whe th er BNSF ha d p ro ve n e ach of t he all eg ed di sc ip li na ry vi ol at io ns

.

E. Dis m is sa ls

. Eb el rev ie wed th e reco rd s an d tra ns cri pt s an d de ci de d th at

BNSF pr ov ed bo th ch arg es -- Gun de rs on en ga ge d in a “ se rio us ev en t of in ti m id at io n

an d ha ras sm en t” ag ai ns t Duk e an d th reat en ed Bea m

. Ebe l de ci de d th at di sm is sa l was

-5

-warra nt ed fo r each vi ol at io n. Ebe l so ug ht ad vi ce fro m Hur lb ur t an d Si eg el e an d hi s

su pe rv is or ; th ey rev ie wed th e rec or ds an d re co m m en de d d is m is sa l fo r eac h c ha rg e.

On Aug us t 25

, 20 09

, BNSF is su ed two se pa rat e di sm is sa l le tt ers to Gun de rs on , on e

fo r ha ras si ng Duk e an d on e fo r th reat en in g Bea m

. Ebe l de ni ed Gun de rs on ’s req ue st

to reco ns id er th e de ci si on

. The UTU ap pe al ed Gun de rs on’ s di sc ha rg e to BNSF Lab or
Rel at io ns , arg ui ng th at th e wor k ru le s i n q ue st io n d id no t app ly to hi s con ta ct s with

Duk e away fro m th e wor kp la ce, an d th at “ al l of th e m ul ti pl e ch arg es le ve le d ag ai ns t

Mr. Gun de rs o n were un warra nt ed an d un su bs ta nt ia te d.” BNSF de ni ed th e in te rn al

ap pe al s. Gun d e r s o n a ls o ap pe al ed to BNSF’s PEPA Bo ard

, whi ch rev ie wed hi s
di sc ip li ne for co m

pa ny-wid e co ns is te nc y

an d u ph el d t he de ci si on

.

F. Rai lw a y L a b o r A ct Appea l. The UTU on be ha lf of Gun de rs on th en

ap pe al ed bo th ru li ng s an d hi s di sc ha rg e to th e Pu bl ic Law Bo ard (PLB), a th reepe rs on arb it rat io n pan el es ta bl is he d u nd er t he Rai lway Lab or Act and co m pr is ed of

a carr ie r m em

be r, un io n m em

be r, an d ne ut ra l memb e r. Gun de rs on arg ue d th at th e

“ real reas on ” be hi nd BNSF’s in v e st ig at io n was th at Gun de rs on ’s act iv it y in

rep res en ti ng m em

be rs as a un io n o f

f i cer “ pl aced hi m in an ad ve rs ari al rel at io ns hi p
wit h [B NSF, whi ch do es ] no t l ik e to be ch al le ng ed .” The PLB de ni ed bo th cl ai m s,

co nc lu di ng B NSF’s ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e ch arg es

. Tho ug h

Gun de rs on ha d a pr ot ect ed in te res t in rep res en ti ng an d co un se li ng un io n m em be rs in

in ve st ig at io ns , th e PLB ru le d, hi s co nd uc t in ha ras si ng an d in ti m id at in g Duk e “ wen t

be y on d th e bo un ds of su ch pr ot ect ed [u ni on ] act iv it y to th at of in te rfer in g wit h th e

pr op er co nd uc t of a co m pa ny in ve st ig at i o n b y ha ras si ng an d in ti m id at in g a

co m pl ai na nt an d c om

pa ny witn es s.”

G. FRSA Compla in t. In N o v em be r 20 09

, Gun de rs on fil ed a ti m el y 4

co m pl ai nt wit h th e Secr et ary of Lab or , al le gi ng fo r th e fir st ti m e th a t hi s di sc ha rg e

An em pl oyee al le gi ng an FRSA vi ol at io n m us t fir st fil e a co m

pl ai nt wit h th e 4

Secr et ary of

Labo r wit hi n 1 80 da y s. 4 9 U.S.C. § § 2 01 09 (d )(2 )(A)(i i).

-6

-was un la wfu l r e t a l i a t i o n fo r hi s rep eat ed co m pl ai nt s ab ou t sa fet y pr ob le m s at th e

W il lm ar Yard an d fo r fil in g an in jury rep or t in Sep te m

be r 20 08 aft er he in

jure d hi s
sh ou ld er at wor k. See 49 U.S.C. § 20 10 9( a)(4 ), (b )(1 )(A); Kud uk v. BNSF Ry

., 76 8

F

. 3 d 7 8 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). The Occu pa ti on al Safe ty an d Heal th Adm in is tra ti o n (OSHA) in ve st ig at ed an d is su ed writ te n fin di ng s an d a pr el im in ary or de r reject in g

Gun de rs on ’s co m

pl ai nt on Sep te m

be r 9, 20 10

. See 29 C.F.R. § 19 82 .10 4 (2 01 1)

. Not in g th at “ en ga gi ng in pr ot ect ed act iv it y do es no t sh ie ld an em pl oyee fro m an y an d

al l su bs eq ue nt di sc ip li na ry act io n,” OSHA co nc lu de d th at th ere was “ no reas on ab le

cau se ” to be li ev e BNSF v io la te d t he FRSA i n d is m is si ng Gun de rs on

.

The FRSA “ ki ck -o u t ” p r o v i d e s th at , i f th e Secr et ary o f Lab or fai ls to is su e a

fin al de ci si on wit hi n 21 0 da y s, t h e c o mp l a in an t m ay rem ov e th e di sp ut e to fed eral

co ur t by fil in g an or ig in al de no vo act io n. 49 U.S.C. § 20 10 9( d) (3 ). Gun de rs on ’s

“ ki ck -o ut ” rig ht accr ue d on Ju ne 23

, 20 10

, 21 0 da y s aft er he fil ed hi s ad m in is tra ti ve

co m pl ai n t

. I n s te ad of fil in g a la wsu it

, Gun de rs on pu rs ue d hi s ad m in is tra ti ve

co m p l a i n t on Octo be r 13

, 20 10

, by fil in g ob jecti on s to OSHA’ s pr el im in ary or de r
wit h DOL’ s Offi ce of Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg es , req ue st in g a fu ll de no vo he ari ng

.

W it h hi s co m

pl ai nt pe nd in g be fo re th e ALJ, Gun de rs on en ga ge d in ex te ns iv e
do cu m en t pr od uc ti on an d de po si ti on s un ti l th e en d of di sc ov ery in Nov em be r 20 11

. The ALJ co nd uc te d a si x- da y ev id e n t i a r y h eari ng in Ja nu ary an d Mar ch 20 12 an d

is su ed a fo ur te en -p ag e de ci si on on Ja nu ary 10

, 20 14

, di sm is si ng Gun de rs on ’s cl ai m

on th e m eri ts

. The ALJ co nc lu de d: “ [I]t is cl ear to m e th at Mr. Gund ers on ’s rai si ng

sa fet y c o n c ern s pl ay ed no pa rt in BNSF’s de ci si on to te rm in at e hi m .” The DOL

reg ul at io ns th en in effe c t p r o v i de d th at th e ALJ’s de ci si on wou ld be co m e th e 5

DOL pu bl is he d an in te rim fin al ru le on Aug us t 31

, 20 10

. See Pro ced ur es fo r 5

th e Han dl in g of Ret al ia ti on Co m pl ai nt s, 75 Fed

. Reg

. 53 52 7 (Au g. 31

, 20 10 ) (co di fie d at 29 C.F.R. Part 19 82 ). In 20 15

, DOL pu bl is he d it s fin al ru le aft er no ti ce

an d c om m en t. See Pro ced ur es for th e Han dl in g of Ret al ia ti on Co m

pl ai nt s, 8 0 F ed

. Reg . 69 11 5 (No v. 9 , 20 15 ) (co di fie d a t 2 9 C .F.R. Part 19 82 ).

-7

-Secr et ary’ s fin al or de r un le ss G u n d ers on pe ti ti on ed fo r rev ie w by DOL’ s

A d mi n i s t r at iv e Rev ie w Bo ard wit hi n te n bu si ne ss da y s. 29 C.F.R. § 19 82 .11 0( a )
(2 01 1)

. The reg ul at io ns fu rth er pr ov id ed th at th e cl ai m an t ha s a “ ki ck -o ut ” rig ht on ly

“ [i]f th ere i s n o fi na l o rd er o f th e Sec ret ary. ” 29 C.F.R. § 19 82 .11 4( a).

II . Thi s L aw su it.

Gun de rs on fil ed th is act io n ni ne bu si ne ss da y s aft er rece iv in g th e ALJ’s

de ci si on , wit ho ut pe ti ti on in g fo r fu rth er rev ie w, an d m or e th an th ree- an d- a-h al f y ears

aft er he acq ui red th e rig ht to ab an do n th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in gs an d fil e a “ ki ck

ou t” act io n. He ag ai n al le ge d th at BNSF fir ed hi m in ret al ia ti on fo r en ga gi ng in

FRSA- pr ot ect ed act iv it y

. BNSF m ov ed to di sm is s, argu in g th at Gun de rs on waiv ed

hi s ri gh t t o bri ng a de no vo act io n in fed eral co ur t by act iv el y li ti ga ti ng hi s cl ai m

in

an ad m in is tra ti ve fo ru m fo r ov er fo ur y ears

. The di st ric t co ur t co nv ert ed th e m ot io n

to di sm is s in to a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t be cau se BNSF su bm it te d po rti on s of

th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd

, se e Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (d ), an d d en ie d t he m ot io n. Not in g

it ha d “ a gr eat de al of sym

pathy fo r BNSF’s arg um en t” be cau se pe rm it ti ng Gun de rs on

to pr oc eed in fed eral co ur t aft er pu rs ui ng th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s a l mo st to it s

co nc lu si on was “ ex tre m el y was te fu l,” th e co ur t co nc lu de d it was “ co ns tra in ed to ho ld

th at Gun de rs on ha s no t waiv ed hi s st at ut or y rig ht to fil e th is act io n.” Gun de rs on v.

BNSF Ry

., 29 F. Su pp

. 3d 12 59

, 12 62

, 12 64 (D. Mi nn

. 20 14 ). Afte r th e co ur t

de cl i n ed to cert ify an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

, th e pa rti es en ga ge d in su bs ta nt ia l

di sc ov ery.

To pr ev ai l on hi s FRSA ret al ia ti on cl ai m , G u n d e rs on m us t pr ov e, by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce, th at “ (i) he en ga ge d in a pr ot ect ed act iv it y ; (ii ) BNSF

kn ew or su sp ect ed

, act ua ll y or co ns tru ct iv el y , th at he en ga ge d in th e p r ot ect ed

act iv it y ; (ii i) he su ffe r e d a n ad ve rs e act io n; an d (iv ) th e ci rcu m st an ces rai se an

in fere nc e th at th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y was a co nt rib ut in g fact or in th e ad ve rs e act io n.”

Kud uk

, 76 8 F.3 d at 78 9. If Gun de rs on m ak es th at sh owi ng , BNSF can av oi d li ab il it y

-8

-if it “ de m on st rat es , by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce, th at [it ] wou ld ha ve ta ke n th e

s a me un fav or ab le pe rs on ne l act io n in th e ab se nc e of [Gu nd ers on ’s pr ot ect ed

act iv it y ]. ” 49 U.S.C. § 42 12 1( b )(2 )(B) (ii ). At th e co nc lu si on of di sc ov ery, th e
di st ric t cou rt rev ie wed th e le ng th y reco rd an d gra nt ed BNSF’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The co ur t ru le d th at Gun de rs on m ad e a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng he en ga ge d in

pr ot ect e d a c t iv it y , BNSF kn ew of th at act iv it y , an d he su ffer ed an ad ve rs e act io n. 6

Howev er, t he co ur t co nc lu de d, (i ) Gun de rs on di d n ot pre se nt su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o

p erm it a reas on ab le jury to fin d th at FRSA- pr ot ect ed act iv it y was a “ co nt rib u t i n g

fact or ” to hi s di sc ha rg e, an d (ii ) al te rn at iv el y , BNSF pr ov ed by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng

ev id en ce th at it wou ld ha ve di sm is se d Gun de rs on reg ard le ss of hi s pr ot ect ed act iv it y

.

II I. Th e Meri ts

.

On ap pe al

, Gun d e r s o n arg ue s th ere is ev id en ce in th e su m m ary jud gm en t

reco rd pe rm it ti ng a jury to fin d th at FRSA- pr ot ect ed a c t i v i t i e s were a co nt rib ut in g

fact or in hi s d is ch arg e: (i) he was a pr om in en t safe ty ad vo cat e at th e W il lm ar Yard

fo r th e ei gh t or ni ne y ears pr io r to te rm in at io n, se rv in g du rin g hi s la st y ear on th e

W il lm ar Yard si te saf

et y co m m it te e; (ii ) th ou gh he su ffer ed no pri or ad ve rs e act io n

fo r hi s m an y sa fet y co m

pl ai nt s, su pe rv is or s Bab ik an d Bea m were op en l y h o s t i le

,

7

wit h Bea m ex pr es si ng th e vi ew th at hi s job wou ld be eas ie r if Gun de rs on were no t

a r o un d be cau se he was un wil li ng to le t go of sa fet y m at te rs , a nd Bab ik refe rri ng to

On ap pe al

, BNSF do es no t co n t e nd th at Gun de rs on pr es en te d in su ffi ci en t 6

ev id en ce t o a vo id su m

m ary jud gm en t o n t ho se ele m en ts of h is ret al ia ti on cla im

.

The co m pl ai nt s in cl ud ed sa fet y pr ob le m s cau se d by sn ow bu il d- up in th e y ard

, 7

le ad in g BNSF to sh ut do wn th e y ard in Decem be r 20 07 ; co m

pl ai nt s th at BNSF was

no t pe rfo rm in g ne wly req ui red ai r te st s, pr om pt in g BNSF to co nd uc t th es e te st s;
rep eat ed co m

pl ai nt s of in ad eq ua te li gh ti ng in th e y ard

, ul ti m at el y cau si ng BNSF to in st al l $2 50 ,00 0 of ne w li gh ti ng eq ui pm en t; an d ot he r un sa fe w o r k i n g co nd it io ns

. Gun de rs on rai se d t he se is su es at s afet y m eet in gs an d in em ai ls to Gene ral Man ag er Ebe l an d Ter m in al Man ag er Be am

.

-9

-Gun de rs on ’s li gh ti ng co m pl ai nt s as “ whi ni ng ”; (ii i) th ou gh Bab i k i n si st ed th at

Gun de rs on fil l ou t an inju ry rep or t afte r hu rti ng hi s sh ou ld er at wor k, see 49 C.F.R.
§ 2 25 .19 (d ) (2 01 5) , Beam an d B ab ik were h os ti le to ward hi m be cau se su pe rv is or s’

bo nu se s de pe nd ed in pa rt on th e nu m be r of in juri es su ffer ed in th ei r te rri to ry ; (iv )

de ci si on -m ak er Eb el at te nd ed m eet in gs wher e Gun de rs on rai se d s afet y co m pl ai nt s; (v ) Bea m an d Bab ik pa rti ci pa te d in th e d eci si on -m ak in g p ro ces s; (v i) BNSF serv ed

it s Not ic e of In ve st ig at io n on Mac e by ce r ti fie d m ai l, bu t se rv ed th e fir st Not ic e of

I n v es ti ga ti on on Gun de rs on pe rs on al ly, wit h su rv ei ll an ce, res ul ti ng in th e se c o n d

in ve st ig at io n; an d (v ii ) BNSF di sc ip li ne d th e si m il arl y si tu at ed Mac e le ss se ve rel y ,

8

an in co ns is te nt ap pl ic at io n o f it s “ zero to le ran ce” f or work pl ace h aras sm en t.

At is su e is th e fo ur th el em en t of Gun de rs o n ’s ret al ia ti on cas e, whe th er hi s

pr ot ect ed act iv it y was a co nt rib ut in g fact or in hi s di sc ha rg e. To av oi d su m m ary jud gm en t on th is el em en t, he m us t su b mi t s u ffi ci en t ev id en ce of “ in te nt io na l

ret al ia ti on pr om

pt ed by t he em

pl oyee en ga gi ng in pr ot ect ed a c t i v i t y.” Kud uk , 7 68

F.3 d at 79 1. A “ co nt rib u t i n g f a c t o r ” in cl ud es “ an y fact or whi ch

, al on e or in

co nn ect io n wit h ot he r fact or s, te nd s to affe ct in an y way th e ou tc om e of th e de ci si on .”

Id

. In co ns id eri ng th is el em en t, we m us t ta ke in to acco u n t “ th e ev id en ce of th e

em pl oyer’s no nr et al ia to ry reas on s.” Pal m er v. Can ad ia n Nat’l Ry

., ARB No. 16 -0 35

, 20 16 W L 58 68 56 0, * 33 (DOL Adm in . Rev . Bd. Se pt . 30 , 20 16 ).

In rev ie win g th is i s s u e , f iv e hi gh ly rel ev an t fact s st an d ou t. Fi rs t, th e
di s c i p li na ry in ve st ig at io ns th at le d to Gun de rs on ’s di sc ha rg e were “ co m pl et el y

un rel at ed ” to hi s pro te ct ed act iv it y

. Kud uk

, 76 8 F.3 d at 79 2. Seco nd

, Gun de rs on ’s

pr io r sa fet y -rel at ed act i vi ti es were rem ot e in ti m e an d di sc on ne ct ed fro m th e
dis ci pli na ry pr oc ee din gs by an “ int erv en in g ev en t th at in de pe nd en tl y jus ti fie d adve rs e

BNSF ex pl ai ne d th at Gun de rs on was wo rk in g o n t he da y th e Not ic es is su ed 8

whi le Mac e was on va cat io n.

-1 0-di sc ip li na ry act io n”
-- un io n pr es id en t Cam pe n co m pl ai ni ng to m an ag em en t th at two

memb e r s w ere be in g ha ras se d. Id .; se e Fel dm an v. Law Enf’t Ass oc s. Co rp ., 75 2

F.3 d 33 9, 34 8 (4 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ cau sa l co nn ect io n m ay be se ve red by th e pa ss ag e of

a si gn ifi can t am ou nt of ti m e, or by so m e le gi ti m at e in te rv en in g e v e n t” ). Thi rd

, Gun de rs on was di sc ha rg ed aft er di sc ip li na ry he ari ng s at whi ch he was rep re s e n t e d
by un io n co un se l, an d th e de ci si on s to di sc ha rg e were up he ld by BNSF in te rn al ly an d
by a Rai lway Lab or Act arb it rat io n pa ne l. Fo ur th , t he m eri ts of th e di sc ha rg e were

ag ai n rev ie wed in a si x- da y he ari ng be fo re a D O L A LJ

, who co nc lu de d th at “ Mr.

Gun de rs on ’s rai si ng sa fet y co nc ern s pl ay ed no pa rt in BNSF’s de ci si on to te rm in at e.”

Fi fth

, th e de ci si on to di sc ha rg e was m ad e by Gen eral Man ag er Ebe l aft er co ns ul ti ng
wit h hi s su pe rv is o r s a n d w i th BNSF hu m an rel at io ns of fic ers , no t by Bab ik an d

Bea m , th e lo wer-l ev el su pe rv is or s Gu nd ers on accu se s o f sa fet y -rel at ed bi as

.

The fact se ct io n of Gun de rs on ’s br ie f rep ris es hi s att ack s on th e m eri ts of th e
di sc ha rg e de ci si on an d ass ert s th at BNSF’s reaso ns for fir in g hi m “ were pret ex tu al

,

an d th us ret al ia to ry .” W e de cl in e to rev ie w th e m eri ts of th e di sc i p l in e be cau se

“ fed eral co ur ts do no t si t as a su pe r-p ers on ne l de pa rtment th at re-e x a mi ne s an

em pl oyer’s di sc ip li na ry de ci si on s.” Kud uk

, 76 8 F.3 d at 79 2 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The

cri ti cal in qu iry i n a p r e t ex t an al y si s “ is no t whe th er th e em pl oyee act ua ll y en ga ge d

in th e co nd uc t for whic h he was term in at ed

, bu t whe th er th e em pl oyer in go od fai th

be li e v e d th at th e em

pl oyee was gu il ty of th e co nd uc t jus ti fy in g di sc ha rg e.”

McC ul lo ug h v. Un iv . of Ark . for Med . Sci s., 5 59 F.3d 85 5, 8 61 -6 2 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

Mo reo ve r, if th e di sc ip li ne was who ll y un rel at ed to pr ot ect ed act iv it y, as th e ALJ

fo un d, whe th er it was fai rly im po se d is no t rel ev an t to th e FRSA cau sa l an al y si s. “ An

em pl oyee who en ga ge s in pr ot ect ed act iv it y is no t in su la te d fro m ad ve rs e act io n fo r
vi ol at in g wor kp la ce ru le s, an d an em pl oyer’s be li ef th a t t h e em pl oyee co m

m it te d

m is co nd uc t is a le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat or y reas on fo r ad ve rs e act io n.” Ri ch ey v.
Ci ty of In de pe nd en ce, 5 40 F.3d 77 9, 7 84 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

-1 1-On ap pe al

, Gun de rs on em ph as iz es ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e in fere nc e th at

Bab ik an d Bea m were ho st il e to Gun de rs on ’s sa fet y co m pl ai nt s an d in

jury rep or ti ng

. Bab ik an d Bea m pa rti ci pa te d in th e in ve st ig at io ns an d te st ifi ed at th e di sc ip li na ry
he ari ng s, he arg ue s, whe re th ey se rv ed as “ cat ’s pa ws” to Ebe l, th e ul ti m at e de ci si on

m ak er. W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Gun de rs on fai le d to pr es en t “ ev id en ce

9

th at Bea m or Bab ik in flu en ced ei th er of Ebe l’s [d is ch arg e] de ci si on s.” In th is reg ard

,

we wil l li m it ou r fo cu s to th e fir st in ve st ig at io n, Gun de rs on ’s ha ras sm en t a nd

in ti m id at io n of co -wo rk er Duk e. Thi s m at te r was br ou gh t to BNSF’s at te nt io n by a

co m pl ai nt fro m un i on pr es id en t Cam pe n. Bab ik ’s on ly ro le was to fo rward th e

co m pl ai nt to hi s su pe rv is or , co ns is te nt wit h BNSF po li cy req u i r i n g hi m to rep or t a

co m pl ai nt of wor kp la ce ha ras sm en t, an d to arra ng e fo r wit ne ss in te rv ie ws. The re is

no ev id en ce th at hi s m ot iv e in d o i n g th es e ro ut in e ta sk s was to ret al ia te ag ai ns t

Gun de rs on fo r rem ot e-i n- ti m e FRSA- pr ot ect ed a c t i v it ie s. Bea m pl ay ed no ro le in

in it ia ti ng th e fir st in ve st ig at io n, di d no t te st i f y at th e fir st he ari ng , an d was no t

in vo lv ed in Ebe l’s de ci si on to di sc ha r g e G un de rs on fo r th e ha ras sm en t. As th e
di st r i c t c ou rt no te d, Bea m an d Bab ik ha d on ly “ tri vi al ” pa rti ci pa ti on in BNSF’s

pr ep arat io n t o p ro se cu te th e in ve st ig at io n h eari ng s.

Gun de rs on fu rth er argu es th at BNSF’s dis pa rat e tre at m en t of Gund ers on an d

Mac e is ev id en ce th at Gun de rs on ’s pr ot ect ed act iv it ie s co nt rib ut ed to hi s di sm is sa l.

W e no te th at Mac e, li ke Gun de rs on , was on e of th e “ lo ud pe op le in W il lm ar” en ga ge d

in sa fet y ad vo cacy and ha d s ub m it te d a n i nju ry rep or t, s o m or e le ni en t t reat m en t of

Ma c e , w ho en ga ge d in si m il ar pr ot ect ed act iv it ie s, wou ld un de rm in e Gun de rs on ’s

ret al ia ti on cl ai m

. See Bon e v. G4S Y ou th Serv s., LLC, 68 6 F.3d 94 8, 95 7 (8t h Cir.

The cat ’s pa w th eo ry req ui res pr oo f th at a su pe rv is or “ pe rfo rm [ed ] an act 9

m ot iv at ed by [dis cri m in at or y ] an im us th at is in te nd ed by th e su pe rv is or to cau se an ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n

. . . if th at act is a pr ox im at e cau se of th e ul ti m at e

em pl oym en t ac ti on .” Kud uk

, 76 8 F.3d at 7 90 , qu ot in g S ta ub v. Pro ct or Hos p., 1 31
S. Ct . 11 86 , 11 94 (20 11 ) (em ph as is in ori gi na l).

-1 2-20 12 ). Mo re im po rta nt ly, th e fir st in ve st ig at io n co nf irmed th at Gun de rs on an d Mac e

were no t si m il arl y si tu at ed

. BNSF of fic ers op in ed th at Mac e’s on e sh or t, co rd ia l

co nv ers at io n wit h Cl uk a di d no t ha ve th e “ sa m e de gr ee of se ve rit y ” as Gun de rs on ’s

ha ras sm en t of Duk e. Cl uk a te st ifi ed th at Mac e as ke d hi m to wit hd raw hi s al le ga ti on s

ag ai ns t Pet ers on an d ne ve r rai se d th e su bjec t ag ai n, whe reas Gun de rs on ’s ha ras sm en t

of Duk e was rep eat ed an d s eri ou s.

Fo r th es e reas on s, we co nc lu de th at su m m ary jud gm e n t di sm is si ng

Gun de rs on ’s ret al ia ti on cl ai m m us t be affi rm ed be cau se he fai le d to su bm it ev id en ce

th at wou ld pe rm it a reas on ab le jury to in fer th at hi s FRSA-p ro te ct ed act iv it ie s were

a co nt rib ut in g fa ct or in BNSF’s d eci si on to di sc ha rg e Gun de rs on fo r ha ras si ng an d

in ti m id at in g co -wo rk er Duk e. The refo re, we ne ed no t co ns id er th e di st ric t co ur t’s

al te rn at iv e gr ou nd

, th at BNSF pr ov ed by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce it wou ld ha ve
di sm is se d Gun de rs on reg ard le ss of hi s pr ot ect ed act iv it y

. Cf. Koz ia ra v. BNSF Ry

., 84 0 F .3d 87 3, 8 78 -7 9 (7 th Cir . 20 16 ).

IV. Th e Wa iv er I ss ue.

In de fen di ng th e d is tri ct co ur t’s s um m ary jud gm en t d eci si on , BNSF urg es us

to ru le

, co nt rary to th e di st ric t co ur t, th at Gun de rs on waiv ed hi s rig ht to fil e a de no vo

act io n in di st ric t co ur t by en ga gi ng in pr ot ract ed ad m in i s t r a t iv e ad jud ic at io n of th e

-1 3-m eri ts of hi s FRSA ret al ia ti on cl ai m

. In ad dr es s i n g t h i s is su e, we be gi n li ke th e 1 0

di st ric t co ur t wi th th e st at ut e’s te xt :

[I]f t h e S ecre ta ry of Lab or ha s no t is su ed a fin al de ci si on wit hi n 21 0
da y s aft er th e fil in g of th e co m pl ai nt [wit h DOL] an d if th e de la y is no t du e to th e ba d fai th of th e em pl oyee, th e em

pl oyee m ay br in g an or ig in al

act io n at la w o r e q u i ty fo r de no vo rev ie w in th e ap pr op ria te di st ric t

co ur t . . . whi ch sh al l h av e juri sd ic ti on ov er s uc h a n a ct io n . . . .

49 U.S.C. § 20 10 9( d) (3 ). Use of th e pr es en t pe rfec t te ns e -- if th e Secr et ary “ ha s no t

is su ed a fin al de ci si on ”
-- in di cat es th at

, aft er 21 0 da y s, th e co m pl ai na nt m ay ab an do n

ag en cy pr oc eed in gs an d res or t to fed eral di st ric t co ur t, so lo ng as th e 21 0- da y de la y
is no t du e to hi s ba d fai th

. Bu t if th e cl ai m an t’s ad m in is tra ti ve co m pl ai nt pr oc e e ds

to a fin al or de r, on ly th e co ur ts of ap pe al s ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e fin al ag en cy

act io n. Se e § 20 10 9( d) (4 ); 2 9 C .F.R. § 1 98 2.1 12 (a), (b ).

The st at ut e is si le nt on th e qu es ti on BNS F r a i se s -- whe th er a cl ai m an t’s

co nd uc t af

te r hi s rig ht to fil e a “ ki ck

- o ut ” la wsu it ha s ve st ed can waiv e hi s rig ht to

co m m en ce an act io n in di st ric t co ur t. BNSF arg ue s th at it can : “ Ju st as li ti ga ti ng in

co ur t waiv es th e rig ht to arb it rat e, a nd li ti ga ti ng in st at e co ur t waiv es th e rig ht to

rem ov e to fed eral co ur t, an d li ti ga ti ng in on e di st ric t waiv es th e rig h t to tra ns fer to

an ot he r, an FRSA pl ai nt iff ’s act iv e an d su bs ta nt ia l li ti ga ti on be fo re OSHA, th e ALJ,

an d/ or th e ARB pa st th e 21 0- da y m ark waiv es th e rig ht to in vo ke FRSA’s ‘kic k- ou t’

Gun de rs on arg ue s w e can no t co ns id er BNSF’s waiv er arg um en t be cau se 1 0

BNSF ha s no t cro ss

- a p p e a l ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin al or de r. Thi s co nt en ti on is
wit ho ut m eri t. “ W e m ay affi rm a jud gm en t on an y gr ou nd rai se d in th e di st ric t co ur t,

an d t he pa rty tha t p rev ai le d i n t he di st ric t co ur t n eed no t fil e a cro ss -ap pe al to rai se al te rn at iv e gr ou nd s fo r a f fir m an ce.” Tran sc on

. In s. Co

. v. W .G. Sam ue ls Co

., 37 0
F.3 d 75 5, 75 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ); se e Hud so n Sp eci al ty In s. Co

. v. Bras h Ty gr , LLC, 76 9
F.3 d 5 86 , 59 3 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ).

-1 4-op ti on .” BNSF ci te s no pr io r cas e in whi ch an FRSA pl ai nt iff ’s ki ck -o ut la wsu it ha s

be en di sm is se d on th e pl ead in gs be cau se th e pl ai nt iff ’s pr io r li ti ga ti o n be fo re th e

ag en cy waiv e d hi s st at ut or y rig ht to fil e a jud ic ia l de no vo act io n be fo re th e DOL

is su ed a fi na l ag en cy

ord er.

In ot he r co nt ex ts , a pa rty’ s was te fu l pu rs ui t of two du pl ic a t iv e rem ed ie s wil l

be de em ed a waiv er of on e or th e ot he r. See, e.g ., PR Gro up , LLC v. W in dm il l In t’l,

Ltd

., 79 2 F.3 d 10 25

, 10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (rem ov al to fed eral co ur t); Erdm an Co

. v.

Ph oe ni x Lan d & Acq ui si ti on , LL C

, 6 5 0 F.3 d 11 15

, 11 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ri gh t to

co m pe l arb it rat io n)

. Howev er, th e fed eral st at ut es un de rlyin g th os e de ci si on s crea te d

or pe rm it te d al te r n a t i v e, no t se qu en ti al rem ed ie s. Here, th e st at ut e ex pr es sl y

au th or iz es , in de ed m an da te s pu r s ui t of an ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed y be fo re al lo win g

pu rs ui t of a se qu en ti al de no vo jud ic ia l rem ed y th at wil l ne ces sa ril y be du pl ic at iv e to

so m e ex te nt

. So th e qu es ti on be co m es , whe n do es th e em pl oyee’s ex te nd ed pu rs ui t

of an ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed y th at m us t b e ex ha us te d fo r at le as t 21 0 da y s refl ect hi s

in te nt io na l ab an don m en t of th e § 20 10 9( d) (3 ) jud ic ia l rem ed y ? BNSF fai ls to su gg es t

a sp eci fic an s w er to th is qu es ti on , si m pl y arg ui ng th at “ su ch du pl ic at iv e li ti ga ti on

was te s s carc e res ou rces ,” as Co ng res s s ur el y kn ew in dra fti ng th e st at ut e.

In op po si ng BNSF’s waiv er co nt en ti on , Gun de rs on arg ue s th at § 20 10 9( d) (3 )
by it s ex pr es s te rm s gi ve s th e em pl oyee-co m

pl ai na nt an ab so lu te rig ht to fil e a ki ck

ou t de no vo act io n if m or e th an 21 0 da y s ha ve el ap se d si nc e th e a d mi n i s t r a t iv e

co m pl ai nt was fil ed

, th e de la y is no t at tri bu ta bl e to th e em pl oyee’s ba d fai th

, an d th e

Secr et ary ha s no t is su ed a fin al or de r rev ie wab le by a co ur t of ap pe al s. W e di sa gr ee.

In th e fir st pl ace, th e Su pr em e C o u r t h a s , “ in th e co nt ex t of a br oa d arra y of

co ns ti tu ti on al an d st at ut or y pr ov is io ns , art ic ul at ed a ge ne r a l ru le th at pr es um es th e

av ai la bi li ty of waiv er.” New Yor k v. Hil l, 52 8 U.S. 11 0, 11 4 (2 00 0) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. Gun de rs on fai ls to art i c u l a t e why th at pr in ci pl e wou ld no t ap pl y to th is

st at ut e. Seco nd

, be cau se no fed eral st at ut e of li m it at io ns ex pr es sl y ap pl ie s to

-1 5-§ 20 10 9( d) (3 ) act io ns , an d be cau se eq ui ta bl e rel ie f su ch as r ei ns ta te m en t is 1 1

au th or iz ed

, it is li ke ly th at co m m on la w pr in ci pl es of la ch es m ay ap pl y to cu t of f an

em pl oyee’s r i g h t t o s u e, or at le as t to se ek eq ui ta bl e rel ie f, so m e ti m e aft er th e § 20 10 9( d) (3 ) act io n accr ue s. S e e B ro wn- Mi tc he ll v. Kan sa s Ci ty Po wer & Lig ht

Co

. , 26 7 F.3 d 82 5, 82 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (Tit le VII po st -ch arg e de la y ); se e ge ne ral ly

Pet re l l a v

. M e tro -Go ld wy n- Mayer, In c., 13 4 S. Ct

. 19 62 (2 01 4) ; Ast or ia Fed

. Sav

.

an d Loa n Ass ’n v. So li m in o, 50 1 U.S. 10 4, 10 8 (1 99 1) (“ [W] he re a co m m on -la w

pr in ci pl e is well es ta bl is he d

. . . co ur ts m ay ta ke it as gi ve n th at Co ng res s h a s
le gi sl at ed wit h an ex pe ct at io n th at th e pr in ci pl e wil l ap pl y ex cep t whe n a s t a t ut or y

pu rp os e to th e co nt rary is ev id en t.”) ; Team st ers & Em p’rs W el fare Tr. of Ill

. v.

Gor m an Bro s. Re ad y

Mi x, 2 83 F.3d 87 7, 8 80 -8 2 (7 th Cir . 20 02 ).

Fo r la ch es to ap pl y , de fen da nt m us t pr ov e: “ (1 ) th e pl ai nt iff un reas on ab ly an d

in ex cu sa bl y de la y ed fil in g th e la wsu it

, an d (2 ) p r e ju d ic e to th e de fen da nt fro m th e
de la y .” Bro wn- Mi tc he ll

, 26 7 F.3 d at 82 7. As BNSF di d no t su ffi ci en tl y de ve lo p it s

al te rn at iv e waiv er arg um en t, di d no t rai se a la ch es or es to pp el de fen se in th e di st ric t

co ur t or on ap pe al

, an d pr es en te d in su ffi ci en t pr oo f ( i f a n y) on th es e fact in te ns iv e
is su es , we lea ve th es e q ue st io ns for an ot he r da y

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d c on cu rri ng in th e jud gm en t.

I co nc ur in Part I th ro ug h III of th e op in i o n o f c o u r t, bu t do no t joi n Part IV.

The di sc us si on of th e co m m on la w pr in ci pl es of la ch es in Part IV is pu re di ct a , on an

i s s u e rai se d su a sp on te by m y co ll eag ue s. W he re th e qu es ti on is un ne ces sa ry t o a

At le as t on e ci rcu it ha s he ld th at th e “ cat ch al l” fo ur -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns 1 1

in 28 U.S.C. § 16 58 (a) ap pl ie s to a si m il ar whi st le bl owe r st at ut e. Jo ne s v. So ut hp eak

In te ract iv e Co rp ., 77 7 F .3d 65 8, 6 66 (4t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

-1 6-de ci si on , an d w i t h o ut br ie fin g or arg um en t on th e co m pl ex is su es lu rk in g th erei n,

i n c l ud in g wha t st at ut e of li m it at io ns m ig ht ap pl y to an act io n un de r 49 U.S.C

. § 20 10 9( d) (3 ) an d th e im pl ic at io n of a li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r th e av ai la bi l i ty of a

la ch es de fen se , se e Petr el la v. Met ro -Go ld wyn -Ma yer
, In c. , 13 4 S. Ct

. 19 62

, 19 73 -7 4
(2 01 4)

, I ex pr es s no vi ew on whe th er th e de fen se is “ li ke ly” to cu t of f an em pl oyee’s
rig ht to su e or to se ek eq ui ta bl e rel ie f. Nor is it ne ces sa ry , gi ve n th e co n c l u si on in

Part III, to ad dr es s th e co m pa ny’ s co nt en ti on th at Gun de rs on , by hi s co nd uc t, waiv ed

hi s rig ht to fil e a de no vo act io n in th e d is tri ct co ur t. In pa rti cu la r, I do no t joi n th e

co ur t’s ap pa ren t as su m

pt io n th at “ Co ng res s su rel y kn ew in dr aft in g th e st at ut e” th at

rai lro ad em

pl oyees co ul d un de rta ke th e so rt of was te fu l du pl ic at iv e li ti ga ti on
di sp la y ed in th is cas e, whe re a cl ai m an t p ur su ed ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s fo r ne arl y
fo ur y ears aft er ex pi rat io n of th e 21 0- da y st at ut or y pe rio d, re cei ve d a n u nf av or ab le

de ci si on fro m an ad m in is tra ti ve la w ju dg e, an d th en st art ed ov er wit h a d up li cat iv e

de no vo act io n i n fe de ral co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 7-