Hernandez v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, Inc. (agency decision, March 1, 2019)

Plain-English summary

Joseph Hernandez left Metro-North's engineer training program after failing the physical-characteristics test twice, then was denied reentry several months later. He alleged that the denial retaliated for his earlier mention of a coworker's arrest for driving under the influence. Metro-North produced an internal rule barring candidates who failed a similar training program from reapplying for five years. Another candidate allowed to return had left for medical absences rather than test failures and was not similarly situated. Because Hernandez identified no evidence disputing the rule or its application and discovery had not been stayed, the Board affirmed summary dismissal for lack of causation.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 20109; 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.72 and 1982.110
• Outcome: Summary dismissal affirmed for failure to raise a factual dispute on contributing-factor causation.
• Key point: Applying a five-year training reentry policy after two test failures did not support retaliation, and speculation about possible future discovery was insufficient.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

  In the Matter of:


  JOSEPH HERNANDEZ,                                      ARB CASE NO. 2017-0016

                  COMPLAINANT,                           ALJ CASE NO. 2016-FRS-00023

         v.                                              DATE: March 1, 2019


  METRO NORTH COMMUTER
  RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.,

                  RESPONDENT.


  Appearances:

  For the Complainant:
         Joseph Hernandez; pro se; Point Pleasant, New York

  For the Respondent:
         Richard L. Gans, Esq.; Metro-North Commuter Railroad; New York, New York

  Before: William T. Barto, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, Daniel T. Gresh and James
  A. Haynes, Administrative Appeals Judges



                                     DECISION AND ORDER

  PER CURIAM

          This case arises under the Federal Rail Safety Act of 1982 (FRSA). 1 Complainant Joseph
  Hernandez filed a complaint alleging that BNSF Railway Company retaliated against him in
  violation of FRSA’s whistleblower protection provisions for referencing a co-worker’s arrest for
  driving under the influence. Hernandez appeals from a Decision and Order (D. & O.) issued by a

  1
          49 U.S.C.A. § 20109 (2016), as implemented by federal regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1982
  (2018) and 29 C.F.R. Part 18, Subpart A (2018).



  Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on November 30, 2016. In the D. & O.,
  the ALJ granted Respondent’s motion for summary decision and dismissed Hernandez’s
  complaint because Hernandez failed to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact about
  whether he engaged in protected activity, or that any protected activity was a contributing factor
  in Respondent’s denying his re-entry into a training program in 2015.


                                             BACKGROUND

          Respondent hired Complainant in 2006. 2 In 2013, Complainant applied for and was
  selected as a candidate for Respondent’s Engineer Training Program (ETP). Around this time,
  Respondent provided Complainant with the ETP guidelines, which state that (1) ETP candidates
  are allowed two attempts to pass each test of the physical characteristics, and (2) two failures to
  pass any one of the tests would result in termination from the ETP.

          During the training program, Kenneth Sciabarassi, Manager of the Locomotive Engineer
  Training Department, gave Complainant two formal written warning letters stating that his
  performance was below standard because Complainant had failed to advise his instructor before
  class that he was going to be late or absent. 3 When Sciabarassi presented Complainant with one
  of the warning letters, Complainant mentioned to Sciabarassi that another ETP candidate had a
  DUI arrest, which had occurred about eight months earlier. Complainant knew at the time of this
  conversation that Sciabarassi already knew about the DUI arrest.

         Several months later, in September 2014, Complainant failed his first and second
  attempts at the physical characteristics test. 4 Respondent sent Complainant a notice on
  September 19, 2014, that he would be terminated immediately from the ETP. He returned to his
  former position.

         In February 2015, after seeing an online announcement that Respondent was accepting
  applications for an ETP, Complainant submitted an application to the Business Service Center
  (BSC). 5 The BSC invited Complainant to take a screening examination, which he did on March
  4, 2015. Thereafter, Fred Gill, Human Resources for Respondent, contacted Complainant and

  2
         The references in this paragraph are to D. & O. at 2, 5, and 6.
  3
         The references in this paragraph are to D. & O. at 6.
  4
         The references in this paragraph are to D. & O. at 6.
  5
         The references in this paragraph are to D. & O. at 6.




  told him that his re-entry to the ETP was invalid because he had been released from it earlier.
  On March 9, 2015, BSC sent Complainant an email informing him that he was not eligible for
  further consideration in the ETP because he had been recently dismissed from the Program.

          On March 13, 2015, BSC sent Complainant another email notifying him that he passed
  the examination he had taken and he would be subject to a background investigation in
  furtherance of his ETP application process. 6 Complainant provided information for the
  background investigation.

          In July 2015, Complainant called Lorenzo Biagi, an employee in Respondent’s Employee
  Relations Department, to follow up about the status of his application to enter the ETP. 7
  Complainant and Biagi met on August 3, 2015, and Complainant asked Biagi about the existence
  of a rule precluding re-entry into the ETP any candidate who had been terminated from the
  program in the prior five years. In September 2015, Biagi confirmed that Respondent had such a
  policy but did not provide Hernandez with documentation of the policy.

          Respondent has produced a document entitled “Metro-North Railroad Locomotive
  Engineer Hiring Process” which is used by the Human Resources department for recruiting and
  hiring for the ETP. 8 It is used internally and is not provided to applicants. 9 It states that
  minimum requirements for the position locomotive engineer include that the candidate must not
  have failed within a five year period any agency-sponsored training program for the same or
  similar position requiring comparable qualifications, testing, or training. 10


                             JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Secretary of Labor has delegated to the Administrative Review Board authority to
  review ALJ decisions in cases arising under the FRSA and issue final agency decisions in these




  6
         The references in this paragraph are to D. & O. at 7.
  7
         The references in this paragraph are to D. & O. at 7.
  8
         Id.; see Betries-Kendall’s Aff. para. 5; Motion for Summary Decision, Ex. F at 2.
  9
         D. & O. at 7; see Betries-Kendall’s Aff. para. 5; Motion for Summary Decision, Ex. F at 2.
  10
         D. & O. at 7; Motion for Summary Decision, Ex. F at 2.




  matters. 11 The Board reviews the ALJ’s factual determinations under the substantial evidence
  standard. 12 The Board reviews an ALJ’s conclusions of law de novo. 13


                                              DISCUSSION 14

         On appeal, Complainant argues that the ALJ erred when she stayed pre-hearing deadlines
  which “stopped Complainant from pre-hearing discovery,” and granted Respondent’s summary
  judgment motion before allowing him a hearing in which to develop his case. 15 He further
  contends that the ALJ’s conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the
  reason Respondent denied Complainant re-entry into the ETP indicates that the ALJ weighed the
  evidence and engaged in improper fact-finding on a summary judgment motion. 16

         As it constitutes a conclusion of law, we review a decision granting summary decision de
  novo. The Board evaluates the decision using the same standard employed by the ALJ: summary
  decision is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact. 17 We view the evidence in

  11
         Secretary’s Order No. 2-2012 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to
  the Administrative Review Board), 77 Fed. Reg. 69378 (Nov. 16, 2012); see 29 C.F.R.
  § 1982.110(a).
  12
         29 C.F.R. § 1982.110(b).
  13
         Hamilton v. CSX Transp., Inc., ARB No. 12-022, ALJ No. 2010-AIR-025, slip op. at 2 (ARB
  Apr. 30, 2013) (citations omitted).
  14
           We limit our discussion to the issue of contributing factor causation and thus, address
  Complainant’s arguments pertaining to that element alone. While we do not decide this matter
  regarding the protected activity element, we note that a complainant’s motive in making a protected
  complaint is irrelevant. Guay v. Burford’s Tree Surgeons, Inc., ARB No. 2006-0131, ALJ No. 2005-
  STA-00045, slip op. at 7 (ARB Jun. 30, 2008) ((“However, ‘where the complainant has a reasonable
  belief that the respondent is violating the law, other motives he may have for engaging in protected
  activity are irrelevant.’”) (quoting Diaz-Robainas v. Florida Light & Power Co., No. 1992-ERA-
  00010, slip op. at 15 (Sec’y Jan. 19, 1996))). In light of our disposition of this appeal, we need not
  consider the question of whether a unsupported assertion that a co-worker was arrested for an
  alcohol-related traffic offense, without any specific connection to employment and without any
  information related to whether the co-worker was convicted, rises to the level of protected activity or
  was mere office gossip.
  15
         Complainant (Comp.) Brief (Br.) at 3.
  16
         Comp. Br. at 6.
  17
         29 C.F.R. § 18.72 (2016)..



  the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and then determine whether there are any
  genuine issues of material fact and whether the ALJ correctly applied the relevant law. 18

           Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, we affirm the ALJ’s
  conclusion that Complainant raised no genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether
  Respondent terminated him from the ETP because of any protected activity. Respondent’s
  submissions show that Metro-North had a written policy, albeit a policy internal to management,
  that that an individual who had failed out of an ETP could not become an engineer training
  candidate for five years. Respondent terminated Complainant from the ETP in September 2014
  for failing the physical characteristics test two times, the maximum number allowed before
  termination from the program. He therefore did not meet the minimum requirements to re-enter
  the ETP when Respondent denied him re-entry in March 2015.

          Complainant has not set forth any facts which would raise a genuine issue as to any of
  these facts. He has not alleged that the policy does not exist. To survive a summary decision
  motion, Hernandez “may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of such pleading.” 19 Rather,
  he must cite “to particular facts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
  electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations,. . . admissions,
  interrogatory answers, or other materials or show[] that the materials [Respondent] cited do not
  establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute.” 20

         Hernandez’s strongest evidence in opposition to the summary decision motion is
  deposition testimony stating that there was another ETP candidate who was terminated from the
  program who was allowed to reenter within five years. 21 However, Respondent submitted
  evidence that the other candidate was not terminated from the program for failing a test, but for
  “extensive absences for medical reasons” whose issues had resolved. 22 Hernandez, who was
  admittedly terminated from the ETP for failing the physical characteristics test twice, was not



  18
        Dugger v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., ARB No. 2016-0079, ALJ No. 2016-FRS-00036, slip op. at
  3 (ARB Aug. 17, 2017) (citations omitted).
  19
          Menefee v. Tandem Transp. Corp., ARB No. 2009-0046, ALJ No. 2008-STA-00055, slip op.
  at 4 (ARB Apr. 30, 2010).
  20
         29 C.F.R. § 18.72(c)(1).
  21
         Motion for Summary Decision, Exhibit A at 51-52, 60-61.
  22
         Motion for Summary Decision, Exhibit O.




  similarly situated to the other candidate. 23 Thus, Hernandez cannot show that there is a genuine
  issue of material fact about the rule’s application to him.

           While Complainant speculates that he would be able to elicit additional facts in discovery
  or at a hearing, he must point to facts that he hopes to elicit in the face of Respondent’s evidence
  showing its policy on the matter or show that Respondent’s submissions do not establish the
  absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Hernandez has failed to do either. The argument
  that Respondent’s reasons are pretext is not an evidentiary fact that is sufficient to support his
  opposition to the motion for summary decision. Nor do Hernandez’s assertions about discovery
  procedure persuade. The ALJ did not stay any discovery in this matter, but instead suspended
  prehearing deadlines and the hearing date—Hernandez still had the opportunity to engage in
  discovery regarding the motion for summary decision, but other than having Respondent take his
  deposition, did not do so.


                                           CONCLUSION

         Accordingly, we AFFIRM the ALJ order that this complaint be DISMISSED because
  Complainant has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the element of
  contributing factor causation.

  SO ORDERED.




  23
         D. & O. at 12; Motion for Summary Decision, Exhibits D and O.