PHILADELPHIA – Amtrak seeks to dismiss claims brought against it by one of its employees under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, after he allegedly faced intimidation and bullying from a supervisor, subsequent to suffering an on-the-job injury.
Matthew Daley of Collegeville first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 23 versus National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) of Washington, D.C.
Daley, an employee of Amtrak, was working at the Frazer storage track in Malvern on July 14, 2020, according to his suit. He alleged that while parking his ballast regulator, a machine crashed into him and caused him to suffer injury to his lower back.
Daley claimed that when his supervisor arrived at the work site, he verbally assaulted him, including stating, “You know you are a piece of s––t, right?” He further claimed that out of fear for his job, he did not want to report the injury.
However, it was reported to Amtrak Police and when he was forced to make a statement about the accident, the supervisor texted him a statement of what he wanted him to report. Daley claimed he feared retaliation from the supervisor outside of work and that in addition to his physical injuries, he also suffered emotional issues.
UPDATE
Amtrak filed a partial motion to dismiss Daley’s complaint on June 30, finding in its view that his claims under the Federal Railroad Safety Act did not pass muster.
“Although plaintiff’s amended complaint makes no mention of this statutory requirement, his FRSA whistleblower claims under FRSA Section 20109 can only be pursued in this Court if plaintiff initially filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. 210 days have passed since the initial filing and the Secretary of Labor has not yet issued a final decision thereon, and there is no showing of delay due to complainant’s bad faith. Plaintiff does not allege and cannot show that he satisfied these statutory conditions,” per the dismissal motion.
The defendant then outlined their rationale for why the complaint should be dismissed.
“On or about July 24, 2020, plaintiff filed his complaint with the Department of Occupational Health and Safety Administration alleging violations of the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20109(d)(1). On Feb. 11, 2021, the Secretary of Labor issued a letter regarding its findings, and dismissed the complaint due plaintiffs’ failure to respond to a request for information. Plaintiff did not file objections or request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge in response to the Feb. 11, 2021 Findings Letter. Nor did he commence a federal court action based on his FRSA claim before the Secretary’s dismissal order became final and non-appealable,” the dismissal motion said.
“On or about March 23, 2022, approximately one year after the Secretary’s order became final and non-appealable, plaintiff filed a complaint against Amtrak in this Court. The civil cover sheet indicated it was a Federal Employer’s Liability Act action, but the complaint itself alleged no jurisdictional basis for the suit. On May 17, 2022, with Amtrak’s consent, plaintiff moved in this Court to amend his complaint. On June 9, 2022, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion and the amended complaint was filed. The amended complaint asserts causes of action under both the Federal Employers Liability Act and the Federal Railroad Safety Act. The amended complaint in this action substantially tracks the FRSA allegations set forth in one of the two so-called supplement complaints previously filed with OSHA, specifically the allegations relating to a workplace injury he allegedly sustained on July 14, 2020.”
According to the defendant, the amended complaint in this action “alleges in conclusory fashion that the suit is brought under the FRSA, however, it is devoid of any factual allegations necessary to support any original action in this court seeking relief under the FRSA.”
“Specifically, an FRSA claim can only be pursued in federal court with respect to the complaint plaintiff filed with the Secretary of Labor under the FRSA if the ‘Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision within 210 days after the filing of the complaint [with the Secretary of Labor] and if the delay is not due to the bad faith of the employee.’ Plaintiff does not and cannot allege facts needed to support an original action under the FRSA in this Court,” the motion to dismiss stated.
For counts of violating the Federal Employers Liability Act and Federal Railroad Safety Act, the plaintiff is seeking a trial by jury, monetary relief and all other just relief.
The plaintiff is represented by James M. Duckworth of Keller & Goggin, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Daniel J. Gillin and Ian Lamar Courts of Landman Corsi Ballaine Ford, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01119
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com