Court Opinion

ID: 9352399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 01:00:23.898253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:27.441952
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60152         Document: 00516599063            Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                                                                         FILED
                                        No. 22-60152                                  January 5, 2023
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
   Terrell Johnson,                                                                        Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Administrative Review Board, United States
   Department of Labor,

                                                                              Respondent.

                        Petition for Review of a Final Decision of
                         the United States Department of Labor
                              Administrative Review Board
                                   ARB No. 2021-0041

   Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Terrell Johnson challenges Union Pacific Railroad Company’s refusal
   to let him return to work. After exhausting his administrative remedies,
   Johnson failed to win relief before the Department of Labor. We deny his
   petition for review.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60152      Document: 00516599063          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/05/2023

                                    No. 22-60152

                                          I.
          On April 14, 2015, Johnson was working as a railroad trackman for
   Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”). While performing a job-
   related task, he injured his neck, cervical spine, low back, lumbar spine, right
   shoulder, and right elbow. He immediately reported his injuries in
   compliance with company policy.
          He then sought recovery under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act
   (“FELA”) for his injuries against Union Pacific. During his jury trial in
   federal district court in December 2016, he alleged that his injuries were
   permanent and prevented him from returning to work. His treating
   physician, Dr. Donald Dietze, testified that he didn’t expect Johnson could
   ever perform his usual work duties again. The jury returned a verdict in
   Johnson’s favor and awarded him $1,227,739 in damages—$832,739 of
   which was specifically for future lost earnings and fringe benefits. Union
   Pacific satisfied a reduced judgment of $993,121.60. Johnson continued
   treatment for his injuries.
          But then in October 2017, Johnson sought to return to work. In
   December 2017—only one year after his trial—he underwent a standard
   Union Pacific medical exam. The examiner checked a box on a form, which
   stated that Johnson could return to work with no restrictions. In January
   2018, Dr. Dietze also cleared him to return.
          But when he submitted a request to return in February 2018, Union
   Pacific denied his request. Specifically, a Union Pacific representative said he
   was “estopped from returning to service” based on the evidence he
   presented at the FELA trial. He was never formally terminated.
          In May 2018, he filed a complaint under the Federal Railroad Safety
   Act of 1982 (“FRSA”), 49 U.S.C. § 20109, with the Department of Labor

                                          2
Case: 22-60152        Document: 00516599063              Page: 3      Date Filed: 01/05/2023

                                         No. 22-60152

   Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Secretary of Labor
   ruled in favor of Union Pacific on its theory of judicial estoppel.
           Johnson sought a de novo hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
   (“ALJ”). He argued that his request to return to work was a protected
   activity under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c)(2) and Union Pacific’s refusal of his
   request amounted to an unlawful termination. The ALJ dismissed his
   complaint. It found that Johnson was effectively terminated and thereby
   faced discipline, but it rejected his contention that his request was a protected
   activity.1 Johnson appealed to the Department of Labor Administrative
   Review Board (“ARB”), which fully agreed with the ALJ.
           Johnson timely filed a petition for review. We have jurisdiction under
   49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(4). We review the ARB’s conclusions of law de novo
   and its factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. Yowell v.
   ARB, 993 F.3d 418, 421 (5th Cir. 2021). “Under the substantial evidence
   standard, the ARB’s decision must be upheld if, considering all the evidence,
   a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion as the ARB.”
   Id. (quotation omitted).
                                               II.
           We begin with the statute. FRSA provides safeguards for railroad
   employees who engage in certain protected activities. 49 U.S.C. § 20109. Of
   relevance here, it prohibits railroad carriers from disciplining employees for
   seeking medical attention or following medical treatment plans. Id.
   § 20109(c)(2). Specifically:

           1
             The ALJ also found that his report of a work-related injury was protected under
   § 20109(a) but concluded that it was not a contributing factor to the refusal. Johnson does
   not challenge this finding on appeal. (He solely argues that his request to return to work
   was a protected activity.) Accordingly, he forfeits the point.

                                               3
Case: 22-60152      Document: 00516599063           Page: 4      Date Filed: 01/05/2023

                                     No. 22-60152

          A railroad carrier or person covered under this section may not
          discipline, or threaten discipline to, an employee for requesting
          medical or first aid treatment, or for following orders or a
          treatment plan of a treating physician, except that a railroad
          carrier’s refusal to permit an employee to return to work
          following medical treatment shall not be considered a violation
          of this section if the refusal is pursuant to Federal Railroad
          Administration medical standards for fitness of duty or, if there
          are no pertinent Federal Railroad Administration standards, a
          carrier’s medical standards for fitness for duty. For purposes
          of this paragraph, the term “discipline” means to bring charges
          against a person in a disciplinary proceeding, suspend,
          terminate, place on probation, or make note of reprimand on an
          employee’s record.
   Id.
          To obtain relief for unlawful discipline under 49 U.S.C.
   § 20109(c)(2), an employee must satisfy the burden-shifting framework in 49
   U.S.C. § 42121(b). See id. § 20109(d)(2)(A)(i). An employee must first show
   that a specified protected behavior “was a contributing factor in the
   unfavorable     personnel     action   alleged    in    the    complaint.”   Id.
   § 42121(b)(2)(B)(i). We have interpreted this burden to mean that an
   employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the employee
   participated in a protected activity; (2) the employer knew the employee
   participated in a protected activity; (3) the employee faced an unfavorable
   personnel action; and (4) the protected activity was a “contributing factor”
   in that unfavorable personnel action. Yowell, 993 F.3d at 421. Then the
   burden shifts to the employer to show by clear and convincing evidence “that
   the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the
   absence    of   [the   employee’s      protected]      behavior.”   49   U.S.C.
   § 42121(b)(2)(B)(ii), (iv).

                                          4
Case: 22-60152      Document: 00516599063          Page: 5    Date Filed: 01/05/2023

                                    No. 22-60152

          The parties also do not dispute (3) that the employee faced an
   unfavorable personnel decision or “discipline” under the statute. Nor do
   they contest (2) that Union Pacific had notice of Johnson’s request. A Union
   Pacific representative told Johnson in response to his request to return to
   work, he was “estopped from returning to service.” Even though Johnson
   was never formally terminated, Union Pacific refused to let him return,
   effectively ending his employment.
          The parties’ disagreement turns on (1) whether a request to return to
   work is a protected activity under the statute, and (4) if so, whether this
   request to return to work was a “contributing factor” in the termination
   decision. Our inquiry begins and ends with (4).
          Even if a request to work is protected activity, Johnson cannot show
   that it contributed in any way to his termination. A contributing factor is “any
   factor, which alone or in combination with other factors, tends to affect in
   any way the outcome of the decision.” Halliburton, Inc. v. ARB, 771 F.3d 254,
   263 (5th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). “Even such a broad interpretation,
   though, has its limits.” Yowell, 993 F.3d at 424. And this case illustrates them
   perfectly. Johnson’s request to return to work played no part in Union
   Pacific’s refusal to allow him to return to work. Union Pacific’s decision was
   based on the fact that it already paid Johnson almost a million dollars for a
   purportedly permanent disability. As the ARB noted: “The parties stipulated
   that Johnson was not allowed to return to work because he was estopped from
   doing so based on his representation of permanent disability at the FELA
   trial.” Johnson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., ARB No. 2021-0041, ALJ No. 2019-
   FRS-00005, slip op. at 5 (ARB Jan. 25, 2022) (emphasis added). Johnson has
   produced no evidence to suggest any other factor, like animus or anything
   else, played any role in Union Pacific’s decision. So we cannot say the ARB’s
   decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
          DENIED.

                                          5