September 23, 2019

A U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Judge held that a worker who was fired after he received a $1.5 million jury award in a negligence lawsuit against his employer cannot pursue a wrongful termination suit against his former employer. The case is Cleveland v. Long Island R.R. Co., No. 18-CV-2080 (VEC), 2019 U.>S. Dist. LEXIS 160206 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2019).

Joshua Cleveland began working for the Long Island Railroad Company in 2007 as an electrician. In April 2014 Cleveland suffered an on-the-job injury, leaving Cleveland with a severed right ring fingertip. After the accident, Cleveland maintained his employment with Long Island RR, and received disabled-accident (DA) pay. Cleveland sued Long Island Railroad, pursuant to the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). The case went to a jury trial and resulted in a finding that Long Island Railroad was negligent. Cleveland won a $1.5 million verdict for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and other damages.

Soon after the verdict, Cleveland's employment was terminated. The termination letter stated the reasoning for his termination was the jury verdict in his favor. Cleveland filed a complaint against the railroad for violating the anti-retaliation provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). The district court judge held that he failed to show that his lawsuit constituted protected activity, a prong that is necessary to fulfill in order to proceed with an FRSA lawsuit.

Cleveland argued that his FELA lawsuit constituted an "investigation" into a violation of federal law. The ruling judge held that the argument lacked merit and was inconsistent with the plain language of the statute. Cleveland also argued that filing the FELA lawsuit was protected activity because it was not related to the enforcement of the FRSA, but rather focused on whether or not the injury was caused by negligence, not a violation of the safety standards in the FRSA. The judge dismissed this argument as well.

Lastly, Cleveland argued that being terminated in retaliation for filing a FELA action "unfairly forces employees to choose between compensation for injuries, and keeping their jobs." The judge noted that Congress consciously chose not to include FELA lawsuits in their anti-retaliation protections that were listed for FRSA, and dismissed that complaint as well.

Editor's Note: When Congress drafted the FRSA, they chose several actions to list as anti-retaliation protections. For example, whistleblowing is a protected action under the FRSA. Since Congress actively chose not to list filing and winning a FELA lawsuit as a protected action, the railroad is justified in firing Cleveland.