PHILADELPHIA – Amtrak has asked for 60 days in which to complete what it refers to as necessary discovery and depositions, in a suit brought by one of its employees under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, after the plaintiff 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, 2022 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.
Amtrak filed a partial motion to dismiss Daley’s complaint on June 30, 2022, 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.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Richard Barclay Surrick ordered the partial dismissal motion granted on July 26, 2022.
“The Motion is granted as unopposed; Plaintiff’s claims under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 20109, Et.Al., are dismissed with prejudice; The Federal Rail Safety Act, Tile 49 Sec. 20109, Et.Al of Paragraph 4 of the amended complaint is stricken,” Surrick said.
“This Court’s jurisdiction over this matter is based solely on the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. Section 51, et seq.; Any damages plaintiff may be entitled to pursuant to the allegations set forth in the amended complaint shall be limited to those recoverable under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. Section 51, et seq. and Amtrak shall file its answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint within 14 days of this order.”
In an Aug. 2, 2022 answer to the complaint, Amtrak denied liability for the plaintiff’s claims and asserted 13 separate affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any injuries suffered by plaintiff were not caused by a negligent act or omission of Amtrak or any individuals acting under Amtrak’s direction or control. Any injuries suffered by plaintiff were caused solely by his own negligence and not by any negligence of Amtrak. To the extent plaintiff has failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the damages alleged in the complaint, same should be reduced accordingly. To the extent any damages, losses, or injuries sustained by plaintiff were caused by the acts and/or omissions of persons or entities other than Amtrak, and over whom Amtrak exercised no control, Amtrak is not responsible. Plaintiff’s claim, if any, is limited by the applicable provisions of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act,” per those defenses.
“Any claims which plaintiff may have against Amtrak are barred or, alternatively, must be reduced by virtue of the doctrine of comparative negligence and/or contributory negligence. Plaintiff’s right to recover damages may be barred, in whole or in part, pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Plaintiff’s claims are limited, pre-empted and/or precluded by federal law. To the extent plaintiff’s injuries and damages were the result of natural processes and/or pre-existing conditions, he should be precluded from recovering for same. To the extent that plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages were due to, and proximately caused by, pre-existing, intervening or superseding injury, illness, condition or other cause, same should be precluded or reduced accordingly. Plaintiffs’ claims are limited and/or precluded by federal, state and/or local statutes, ordinances and/or regulations. Plaintiffs’ cause of action is barred by the doctrines of release, waiver, issue preclusion, res judicata and/or judicial estoppel.”
In an Aug. 26, 2022 status report which defense counsel filed with the Court, it was noted that Amtrak has produced its initial discovery disclosures, while the plaintiff will produce his initial disclosure within seven days of the Aug. 30 pre-trial conference. Furthermore, all discovery will be completed by Jan. 31 of next year – and there is currently a $325,000 settlement offer in play.
“Settlement negotiations have not yet taken place. Plaintiff has presented Amtrak Claims with a demand of $325,000. Amtrak has not responded to the demand,” the status report said.
UPDATE
In an April 3 letter to the Court, Amtrak argued for a 60-day rescheduling of case deadlines, in order to complete discovery and necessary depositions.
“The parties have remained diligent with completing discovery to date. After several scheduling conflicts, Amtrak deposed plaintiff on Feb. 3, 2023. Plaintiff also appeared for an independent medical examination on Feb. 1, 2023. Amtrak produced its expert’s report regarding that IME on Feb. 28, 2023. Following plaintiff’s deposition, plaintiff’s counsel requesting the depositions of seven Amtrak employees as fact witnesses. Considering the amount of depositions requested, the respective schedules of these witnesses, some of which work night shifts, and the availability of the parties, these depositions have been scheduled for early April 2023,” Amtrak’s letter read, in part.
“At deposition, plaintiff testified to ongoing medical treatment for psychological symptoms allegedly suffered because of the accident. Plaintiff similarly testified that he was recently referred to a psychiatrist for continued medical and prescribed medications. Amtrak is still pursuing these records, which are important for evaluation of plaintiff’s claims. Amtrak has also requested the deposition of plaintiff’s expert treating psychologist. Plaintiff has not yet provided availability and any deposition is now unlikely to occur until the week of April 17, 2023, at the earliest. Therefore, the parties jointly request that the fact and expert discovery deadline of April 3, 2023, and other deadlines set forth in the case management order, be extended by 60 days so that parties can complete the above referenced discovery and depositions. The parties are available should Your Honor wish to further discuss anything further.”
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 Daniel E. Mulligan 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