Haynes v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (Board decision, May 20, 2021)

Plain-English summary

Brad Haynes appealed an ALJ's order canceling a formal hearing and dismissing his Federal Railroad Safety Act case against Union Pacific Railroad. While the Board appeal was pending, Haynes notified the Board that he had filed an original action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(3). The Board held that the Department of Labor no longer had jurisdiction because Haynes had chosen the district-court route. It dismissed the administrative case without deciding the underlying whistleblower allegations.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 20109 and § 20109(d)(3)
• Outcome: Administrative complaint dismissed after removal to federal district court.
• Key point: Once an FRSA complainant proceeds with an original action under § 20109(d)(3), the district court has jurisdiction and the Department of Labor case ends.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW Washington,
DC 20210-0001

IN THE MATTER OF:

BRAD HAYNES,
ARB CASE NO. 2021-0026

COMPLAINANT,
ALJ CASE NO. 2019-FRS-00062

v. DATE: May 20, 2021

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY,

RESPONDENT.

Before: James D. McGinley, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and Thomas H. Burrell, Administrative Appeals Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

PER CURIAM. This case arises under the whistleblower protection provisions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1982 (FRSA).1 On April 13, 2021, the Administrative Review Board (Board) issued a Notice of Appeal and Order Establishing Briefing Schedule in the appeal of the Administrative Law Judge Patrick M. Rosenow’s Order Cancelling Formal Hearing and Dismissing issued March 26, 2020.

On May 14, 2021, Complainant filed a Notice with the Board indicating that on May 13, 2021, he had filed an original action pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(3), with the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Western Division, seeking review.

Since Complainant has chosen to proceed in district court, the Department of Labor no longer has jurisdiction over his case. As the statute provides, the “district

1 49 U.S.C. § 20109 (2008), as implemented by 29 C.F.R. Part 1982 (2020) and 29 C.F.R.
Part 18, Subpart A (2020).
2

court of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction over such an action.”2 We
therefore DISMISS this case on the ground that Complainant has removed it to
district court.

SO ORDERED.

2 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(3).