Court Opinion

ID: 9485745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:28:34.576883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:19.661351
License: Public Domain

FLAUM, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
This case poses a rather tricky question of issue preclusion. The court’s opinion represents a very thorough elaboration of the relative scope and purposes of the FELA and the RLA as well as the particular tension between the two statutes with regard to Ku-lavic’s claim. At the most basic level, neither party disputes that Kulavie was entitled to recover damages under the FELA for the harm he suffered at the hands of his supervisor. See Lancaster v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 773 F.2d 807, 814-15 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945, 107 S.Ct. 1602, 94 L.Ed.2d 788 (1987). His supervisor’s conduct that precipitated Kulavic’s injuries constitute an unauthorized touching of him and, although intentional rather than negligent, nevertheless fall within the bounds of the FELA. The principal question then is whether Kulavie is entitled to seek all the damages to which he maintains he is entitled.
In his complaint, Kulavie claimed a right to recover for disability from his injury, pain and suffering, medical expenses, lost earnings, and loss of earning capacity and fringe benefits. Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway Company (“C & IM”) contested only whether he has the right to present evidence to the jury of any wages or earning capacity or fringe benefits lost after it terminated him. Thus, the district court’s denying Ku-lavic the right to offer evidence of any losses after his discharge did not totally deprive him of his FELA claim but merely circumscribed it in a fairly limited way (assuming that pain and suffering constitutes the major component of a personal injury claim).
To determine whether Kulavie can present evidence on his post-termination damages, the court’s opinion carefully retraces the sometimes blurry line between the RLA and the FELA. For example, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 107 S.Ct. 1410, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987), contains some rather expansive language regarding the types of negligence claims by railroad employees that may be brought under the FELA. Apparently taking Buell’s lead, the court reasons that because the RLA does not preempt FELA actions, a PLB order arrived at through RLA arbitration procedures does not have any preclusive effect on a FELA action. Analogizing from cases such as Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974), McDonald v. City of West Branch, 466 U.S. 284, 104 S.Ct. 1799, 80 L.Ed.2d 302 (1984), Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981), and Coppinger v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 861 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.1988), the court maintains that the nature of the grievance process *521and the PLB arbitration “[does] not provide an adequate substitute for judicial proceedings in adjudicating claims under that statute.” Op. at 514. Certainly, no one would dispute that an arbitration panel is, ill-equipped to consider certain types of claims, particularly those falling outside the range of claims stemming from minor breaches of collective bargaining contracts. Accordingly, arbitration would not be a proper method for adjudicating an.employee’s Title VII or section 1983 claims.
On the present facts, however, I believe that the damages claimed by Kulavic do not fall unequivocally outside of the RLA regime for resolving workplace grievances. In this regard, I find Benjamin v. Traffic Executive Ass’n Eastern Railroads, 869 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.1989), to be more germane than Copping-er. For Kulavic to assert his personal injury claim in court under the FELA and avoid the preclusive effect of the RLA, his claim must, as a preliminary matter, be based on a specific provision of FELA, that is, Congress must have intended that such actions be litigated in FELA suits.1 See Jackson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 717 F.2d 1045, 1050 (7th Cir.1983). The language of the FELA on which Kulavic is relying provides:
Every ... 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). At first glance, his damages action falls squarely within this provision. However, a somewhat different characterization of Kulavic’s action does suggest that the FELA may not be broad enough to accommodate him in recovering all the damages he seeks. One could properly regard his claims for lost wages and fringe benefits as discharge-related claims. And an extremely literal reading of this FELA provision may allow recovery only for injuries that accrued during the tenure of the employee with a given carrier. Because any lost wages and benefits precluded by the district court accrued after Kulavic’s termination, he would not be able to pin them on this (or any other) statutory provision in the FELA. Kulavic would probably respond that even those damages can be traced back to the original altercation with his supervisor; moreover, the PLB did not literally address whether he was entitled to these post-discharge wages or fringe benefits during its termination hearing. It resolved only whether the discharge of Kulavic was lawful. Accordingly, I believe that the only issue relevant to this court’s review should be the estoppel effect of Ku-lavic’s termination, the legitimacy of which he did not challenge earlier and should not be able to challenge now. In this regard, I would focus not on the competence of those administering the termination hearing, itself the subject of collective bargaining, or the PLB, an 'entity sanctioned by Congress under the RLA, see 45 U.S.C. § 153 (1986), but on the reach of their conclusions.
One of the goals of issue preclusion is to put to rest'those matters that a party has had an “full and fair opportunity to litigate.” See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 328, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 1442, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971). Kulavic contends that because the factfinding by the PLB is distinct from, if not inferior to, judicial factfinding, the PLB termination decision should not have preclusive effect on the post-discharge losses. See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 331 n. 15, 99 S.Ct. 645, 655 n. 15, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979) (“differences in available procedures may sometimes justify not allowing a prior judgment to have estoppel effect in a subsequent action even between the same parties”). More to the point, despite a possible overlap in the evidence reviewed by the PLB and that which Kulavic would present in federal court, the PLB did not have occasion to consider his future economic damages.
In terminating Kulavic, the PLB deemed that he was fit to return to work. Any demands by Kulavic for post-discharge *522wages and benefits appear then to be unwarranted because those items in essence represent the remedial elements of a wrongful discharge claim (minus reinstatement), which would properly fall within the strictures of the RLA and the purview of the PLB. Cf. Morrissette v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co., 299 F.2d 502 (7th Cir.1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 874, 82 S.Ct. 1141, 8 L.Ed.2d 277 (1962). I am not inclined to permit Kulavic to reopen or to circumvent the discharge proceedings, particularly if he was just balking at returning to the railyard. In my opinion, allowing a jury to hear evidence on whether Kulavic is entitled to post-termination lost wages and fringe benefits would be an end run around the finality of his termination, which is contrary to a very basic purpose of collateral estoppel. On the other hand, an employee’s claim for the loss of future earning capacity is not dependent on that employee’s present or previous employment circumstances. See, e.g., Wiles v. New York, Central & St. Louis R.R., 283 F.2d 328 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 900, 81 S.Ct. 232, 5 L.Ed.2d 193 (1960); see generally McKnight v. General Motors Corp., 973 F.2d 1366 (7th Cir.1992); Wolkenhauer v. Smith, 822 F.2d 711 (7th Cir.1987). Because the issue of Kulavic’s lost earning capacity falls outside the scope of the PLB termination decision, I would limit remand to the district court for a new trial solely on the issue of future economic damages, excluding any consideration of lost wages and fringe benefits subsequent to his discharge from C & IM.2

. Whether estoppel of certain damages claims by means of the PLB's decision to uphold Kulavic's termination “is intended by the legislature" is another way of asking whether Congress intended for sufch claims to be brought under the FELA. See Astoria Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991).

. Finally, I would note that although the court dismissed C & IM’s cross appeal on its right to set off against the FELA judgment, the availability of set off to C & IM is not in dispute. See 45 U.S.C. § 55, Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Strong, 907 F.2d 707 (7th Cir. 1990).