# 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- 35 32

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Kell y Heim

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 Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 16 Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

27 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re COLLOTON, MELLOY , and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Kell y Heim

, a tra ck wor ke r fo r BNSF Rai lway Co m pa ny (“ BNSF” ), was

se rio us ly in

jure d whe n a rai l ro ll ed on to hi s fo ot

. BNSF di sc ip li ne d Heim fo r al le ge d
vi ol at io ns of BNSF ru le s th at le d t o t h i s i n jury. Heim su ed

, cl ai m in g BNSF’s
di sc ip li ne vi ol at ed th e em pl oyee-p ro te ct io ns pr ov is io n of th e Fed eral Rai lro ad Safe tyAct (“ FRSA” ), 49 U.S.C. § 20 10 9( a)( 4 )

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary 1 jud gm en t fo r BNSF, an d we n ow af fir m

.

I.

On th e da y of hi s in

jury, Heim was wor ki ng as pa r t of a se ct io n ga ng ne ar Dou gl as , W y om in g. Th e se ct io n ga ng was res po ns ib le for rep la ci ng worn m at eri al

un de rn eat h th e rai l. Thi s pr oc es s, kn own as “ rai l se at ab ras io n,” req ui res de -cl ip pi ng

an d swi ng in g th e rai l in to th e cen te r of th e t r a ck

. The lo os e rai l, ho wev er, rem ai ns

un de r te ns io n, an d th ere is a r is k th at it m ay ro ll or ti p un pr ed ic ta bl y

. Dur in g a

m or ni ng sa fet y br ie fin g, th e ga ng was al le ge dl y warn ed of th is ris k an d in st ru ct ed to

rem ai n ou t of th e “ da ng er zo ne .” The da ng er zo ne is th e area be twee n th e lo os e an d
fix ed rai l. In th is zo ne , th e lo os e rai l co ul d m ov e an d pi nc h a wor ke r ag ai ns t a fix ed
rai l. Loo se rai l te nd s to ti p to ward s fix ed rai l, bu t can ti p ei th er way

. No BNSF ru le
di rect ly pr oh ib it s em

pl oyees from st ep pi ng in to th e d an ge r zo ne , bu t gen eral BNSF

ru le s re qu ire em

pl oyees t o t ak e p reca ut io ns to av oi d i nju ry

.

At th e ti m e of hi s i n

ju ry , Heim was res po ns ib le fo r pi ck in g up “ ot he r tra ck

m at eri al ” ( e.g

. , cl ip s, sp ik es , an d an ch or s)

. BNSF wor ke rs pi ck up th es e m at eri al s b e cau se th ey m ay po se a tri pp in g ha zard or ge t “ ta m pe d in to th e ba ll as t.” W hi l e
pe rfo rm in g th is ta sk

, Heim no ti ced a st ray rai l cl ip in th e da ng er zo ne

. Acco rd in g to
Heim

, th e lo os e rai l was si tt in g fla t at th e ti m e an d di d no t ap pe ar to be m ov in g. He
lo ok ed bo th way s to lo cat e th e ne ares t on -tr ack m ach in es an d, b el ie vi ng it was s afe

un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , st ep pe d be twee n th e lo os e an d fix ed rai ls to ret rie ve th e cl ip

. Afte r Heim di d so , th e lo os e rai l jum pe d on to hi s le ft fo ot , f

r a c t u r i n g it

. The rai l pi nn ed He i m’s fo ot to th e gr ou nd

, bu t th e rai l di d no t pi nc h hi m ag ai ns t th e fix ed
rai l— th e “ da ng er” typic al ly as so ci at ed wit h th e da ng er zo ne

. Heim cal le d ou t to hi s

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd

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

.
-2

-co wor ke rs fo r he lp , a nd aft er t he rai l was fin al ly rem ov ed fro m hi s fo ot 30 m in ut es

la te r, Heim

was t ran sp or te d t o t he ho sp it al

.

Acco rd in g to Heim

, hi s im m ed ia te su pe rv is or , Ji m W hi te , pr es su red hi m in to
f il li ng ou t a fo rm al pe rs on al in jury rep or t at th e ho sp it al

. Heim di d no t wan t t o f i l l

ou t t he for m

at t he ti m e b ecau se he ha d tak en pr es cri pt io n p ai n m ed ic at io n. Whit e, ho wev er, “ in si st ed th at it ne ed ed to be fil le d o ut rig ht th en an d th ere.” W he n Heim
fil le d ou t th e rep or t an d ch eck ed th e bo x in di cat in g th at th e in jury was cau se d by th e

co nd uc t of an ot he r pe rs on , W hi te “ co ach ed ” Heim to ch a n g e hi s an swe r. Heim

acq ui es ced

, sc rat ch in g ou t hi s or ig in al an swe r an d in di cat in g th at th e in jury was no t

cau se d by an ot he r pe rs on

. Heim al so wro te th at he co ul d hav e pr ev en te d th e in jury by pi ck in g up th e cl ip fro m th e ot he r si de of th e rai l or le av in g th e cl ip un ti l he co ul d

ret rie ve it lat er.

One week aft er Heim ’s in jury, he r e cei ve d a no ti ce of in ve st ig at io n fro m BNSF. The no ti ce req ue st ed th at Heim at te nd a he ari ng to d e te rm in e “ hi s

res po ns ib il it y , i f a ny, in co nn ect io n wit h [h is ] al le ge d fai lu re to co m pl y wit h
in st ru ct io ns gi ve n at th e m or ni ng br ie fin g an d fai lu re to be al ert & at te nt iv e whe n [h e] pl aced hi s fo ot in ha rm s [ si c ] way be twee n t h e l o o s e rai l an d fix ed rai l.” At th e he ari ng , Heim st at ed th a t h e b e l ie ve d it was sa fe to st ep be twee n th e rai l un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces an d th at he co ul d no t ha ve pr ev en te d th e in jury wit ho ut al so fai li ng to

pe r f o r m h i s jo b th at da y ( i.e.
, rem ov e de br is fro m th e tra ck ). A BNSF Div is io n Eng in eer, Sam

ue l Turn bu ll

, rev ie wed th e tra ns cri pt fro m th e he ari ng an d de te rm in ed
th at Heim vi ol at ed BNSF ru le s req ui rin g em pl oyees to be al ert , at te nt iv e, an d care fu l

to pr ev en t in

jury. As a re su lt , Heim

was g iv en a Lev el S (Ser io us ), 30 -Day Rec or d
Su sp en si on an d a on e-year pr ob at io na ry pe rio d. The effe ct of th is di sc ip li ne was th at
Heim face d a 30 -d ay su sp en si on wit ho ut pa y if he co m m it te d an ot he r ru le vi ol at io n du rin g th e on e-year pr o ba ti on ary p eri od

. Heim ul ti m at el y di d no t rece iv e an y ti m e of f wit ho ut pa y

as a res ul t o f hi s R eco rd Su sp en si on

.

-3

-Heim fil ed su it ag ai ns t BNSF, cl ai m in g th at it s di sc ip li ne vi ol at ed th e FRSA.

In hi s di sc ov ery de po si ti on , Turn bu ll te s t i f i e d th at he was “ pr ob ab ly gu il ty” of

st ep pi ng to o cl os e to th e lo os e rai l hi m se lf, an d th at “ th ere pr ob ab ly i sn ’t an

en gi ne eri ng em

pl oyee ou t on th e tra ck th at at on e po in t in ti m e ha s no t ei th er st ep pe d
th at cl os e [to lo os e rai l] or se en so m eb od y do it .” Turn bu ll

, ho wev er, st at ed th at he

was no t aware of an y ot he r em pl oyee in hi s “ te rri to ry ” who ha d be en di sc ip li ne d fo r
st ep pi ng to o cl os e to lo os e rai l. He al so st at ed th at he ha d ne ve r pe rs on al ly se t up an in ve st ig at io n fo r su ch a vi ol at io n. Bu t, acco rd in g to Turn bu ll

, Heim ’s in ci de nt

warra nt ed di sc ip li ne be cau se it was a “ pr et ty si gn ifi can t ev en t” du e to Heim ’s in jury.

Add it io na ll y , Turn bu ll

, W hi te , an d a BNSF corp or at e rep res en ta ti ve te st ifi ed
ab ou t a BNSF in cen ti ve co m pe ns at io n p r o g r am

. BNSF’s co rp or at e rep res en ta ti ve
te st ifi ed th at 15 % of th e co m pe ns at io n pr og ram de pe nd ed up on m eet in g or ex ceed in g BNSF go al s fo r red uc in g in juri es rep or ta bl e to th e Fed eral Rai lro ad Adm in is tra ti on

. 2

The rep res en ta ti ve fu rth er te st ifi ed th at th is co m po ne nt of th e co m

pe ns at io n pr og ram is im po rta nt to in cen ti vi ze em pl oyees to ha ve “ pr oc es se s, s u c h as [a] sa fet y act io n pl an

. . . th at are go in g to red uc e an d el im in at e in jury, pa in

, an d su ffer in g.” Turn bu ll

te st ifi ed th at hi s bo nu s fro m th e co m pe ns at io n pr og ram is b a s e d o n t he nu m be r of
in juri es rep or te d co m

pa ny-wid e, no t th e nu m

be r of in juri es rep or te d un de r in di vi du al

m an ag ers

. He st at ed

, “ I co ul d ha ve zero [in juri es ] an d th e ne xt gu y co ul d ha ve 10 an d
i t mak es no di ffer en ce, ev erybod y is go in g to ge t th e sa m e. Bu t at th e lo cal le ve l

y ou ’re al so ev al ua te d on y ou r sa fet y an d it ’s no t ba se d of f th e nu m be r of in juri es

. It’s
ba se d of f of wha t y ou ’re do in g t o c h a n g e b e ha vi or s, wha t y ou ’re do in g to fix th e

en vi ro nm en t[.]” Fu rth er, Turn bu ll an d W hi te bo th te st ifi ed th at th ey ha d be en tra in ed

n o t t o ret al ia te ag ai ns t em pl oyees fo r rep or ti ng in

juri es , a nd W hi te te st ifi ed th a t h e ha s wi tn es se d a co wor ke r fi red for su ch ret al ia ti on

.

Turn bu ll te st ifi ed he was “ pr et ty su re” Heim ’s in jury was an in

jury rep or ta bl e 2

to th e Fed eral Rai lro ad Adm in is tra ti on

.
-4

-The pa rti es fil ed c r o s s -m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

gr an te d jud gm en t to BNSF. The di st ric t c o u r t reas on ed th at Heim was req ui red to
de m on st rat e th at BNSF in te nt io na ll y ret al ia te d ag ai ns t Heim fo r rep or ti ng hi s in jury.

Fu rth er, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Heim fai le d to pr od u c e s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce of
in te nt io na l re ta li at io n. Hei m no w app eal s.

II.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g al l evid en ce an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e no nm ov in g pa rty.” Helm ig v. Fo wler

, 82 8 F.3 d 75 5
, 7 60 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ).

“ Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te ‘if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no g e n u i ne di sp ut e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of
la w.’ ” Id . (qu ot in g F ed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a))

.

Und er th e FRSA, “ [a] rai lro ad carr ie r

. . . m ay no t di sc ha rg e, de m ot e, su sp en d,

r e p r i m an d, or in an y ot he r way di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an em pl oyee if su c h
di sc riminat io n is d u e , i n who le or in pa rt, to th e em pl oyee’s la wfu l, go od fai th act
do ne

. . . (4 ) to no ti fy , or a tt em pt to no ti fy , th e rai lro ad carr ie r . . . of a wor k- rel at ed

pe rs on al in

jury or wor k- rel at ed il ln es s.” 49 U.S.C. § 20 10 9( a). To es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e un de r th is se ct io n, an em pl oyee m us t sh ow “ (i) he en ga ge d in a pr ot ect ed

act iv it y ; (ii ) [th e rai lro ad carr ie r] 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 pr ot ect ed act iv it y ; (ii i) he su ffer ed an 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 v. BNSF Ry

. Co
., 76 8 F.3 d 78 6, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

In th e pr es en t cas e, Heim co nt en ds th at he was di sc ip li n e d f or su ffer in g an i n ju r y , no t be cau se he st ep pe d ne ar th e lo os e rai l. As ev id en ce, he po in ts t o Turn bu ll ’s co m

m en ts th at ot he rs ha ve no t be en di sc ip li ne d fo r st ep pi ng ne ar loose rai l

an d th at Heim ’s in

jury is wha t m ad e hi s vi ol at io n di ffer en t. Thu s, be cau se Turn bu ll

-5

-wou ld no t ha ve le arn ed ab ou t t h e v i o l a t i on wit ho ut th e in jury rep or t an d be cau se th ere wou ld ha ve be en no in jury rep or t with ou t Heim ’s in jury, Heim arg ue s th at hi s in jury rep or t is “ in ex tri cab ly in te rtwi ne d” wit h hi s di sc ip li ne

. Acco rd in g to Heim

, th is fact ua l co nn ect io n, wit ho ut m or e, is su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th e co nt rib ut in g- fact or el em en t of hi s pr im a faci e cas e. See Ray v. Uni on P a c

. R

. R

. C o ., 97 1 F. Su pp

. 2d
86 9, 88 8 (S.D. Io wa 20 13 ) (“ Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces

. . . , Pl a i n t i f f h as de m on st rat ed a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er hi s pr ot ect ed act iv it y was

a co nt rib ut in g fa ct or in hi s t erm in at io n . . . be cau se Pla in ti ff’s repo rt is in ext ri ca bl y
in te rt wi ne d

wit h t he ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on .” (em

ph as is ad de d) ).

Bu t t h i s C o u r t ha s pr ev io us ly he ld th at , un de r th e FRSA’s em pl oyeepr ot ect io ns pr ov is io n, “ th e co n t r i b u t in g fact or

. . . an em pl oyee m us t pr ov e is
in te nt io na l ret al ia ti on pr om pt ed by th e em

pl oyee en ga gi ng in pr ot ect ed act iv it y .”
Kud uk

, 76 8 F.3 d at 79 1. Fo r th e reas on s se t fo rth in ou r op in io n is su ed to da y in
Bl ack or by v. BNSF Rai lway Co
., No.1 5- 31 92
, sl ip op

. at 8– 10 (8 th Ci r. Feb

. 27
, 20 17 ), we are bo un d to fo ll ow Kud uk

. Heim th eref or e m us t de m on st rat e m or e th an

a m ere fact ua l co nn ect io n be t w e e n h i s in jury rep or t an d hi s di sc ip li ne in or de r to

es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e un de r th e co nt rib ut in g- fact or st an da rd

. Heim ne ed no t

“ co nc lu si ve ly d e mo n s t rat e [BNSF ’s] ret al ia to ry m ot iv e” to es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e

cas e, bu t he m

us t de m on st rat e th at BNSF’s di sc ip li ne was , at le as t in pa rt, in te nt io na l

ret al ia ti on pr om

pt ed by hi s in

jury rep or t. See Kud uk

, 76 8 F.3 d at 79 1 (q uo ti ng Co pp in ge r-M art in v. So li s, 6 27 F.3d 74 5, 7 50 (9t h C ir. 2 01 0) ).

Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Heim

, we co nc lu de th at no

reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d co nc lu de th at Heim ’s su pe rv is or s in te nt io na ll y ret al ia te d

ag ai ns t h i m f

o r f il in g hi s in

jury rep or t. To st art , th ere is no di sp ut e th at W hi te

req ue st ed Heim su bm it a fo rm al in jury rep or t. On th e co nt rary, Heim co nt en ds th at
W hi te pr es su re d h i m to fil l ou t th e rep or t. The rem ai ni ng ev id en ce, m or eo ve r, is
in su ffi ci en t to su gg es t th at Turn bu ll in te nt io na ll y ret al ia te d ag ai ns t Heim

. W hi le th e
K uduk co ur t “ ack no wled ge [d ] th at th e m or e le ni en t ‘con tri bu ti ng fa ct or ’ sta nda rd w ill

-6

-in crea se to so m e ex te nt th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of te m po ral pr ox im it y ,” it al so “ reject [ed ]
th e no ti on

. . . th at te m

po ral pr ox im it y , wit ho ut m or e, is su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e” un de r th e FRSA. Id

. at 79 2. W e co nc lu de th at BNSF’s co m pe ns at io n
pr og ram is in su ffi ci en t, b y

it se lf, t o p ro vi de th e “ m or e” n eces sa ry for Heim ’s cla im

t o su rv iv e su m

m ary jud gm en t; th e reco rd de m on st rat es th at bo nu s cal cu la ti o n s a r e ba se d on a co m

pa ny-wid e red uc ti on of rep or ta bl e in juri es an d no t ba se d on rep or ta bl e in juri es un de r in di vi du al m an ag ers li ke Turn bu ll

. And Turn bu ll ’s al le ge d ad m is si on th at th e ru le s were se le ct iv el y en fo rced ag ai ns t Heim is l ik ewis e in su ffi ci en t.
Alt ho ug h Turn bu ll ad m it te d th at m os t em pl oyees ha ve pr ob ab ly st ep pe d to o cl os e to
lo os e rai l and were no t di sc ip li ne d, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at , un le ss th ey

were in jure d li ke Heim

, t h e i r vi ol at io ns m os t li ke ly “ wou ld ha ve go ne un no ti ced .”
The refo re, wit ho ut m or e sp eci fic ev id en ce of an im pr op er ret al ia to ry m ot iv e, we fin d
th at Heim fai le d t o e st ab li sh hi s p rima facie cas e.

III.

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

.

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

-7

-