Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D.D.C.: Amtrak may have engaged in pretext in discharging employee for outside work while on medical leave, (Sep 24, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employee introduced evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that Amtrak terminated her not because of a policy violation, but because she needed medical leave for her disability.

Amtrak was denied a motion for summary judgment against an employee’s suit in which she alleged that her employment was terminated in violation of the ADA, ruled a federal court in the District of Columbia. According to Amtrak, it terminated the employee because she violated a company policy by engaging in outside employment while on medical leave. However, the court found genuine disputes over pretext and discriminatory motive. Here, the employee pointed to evidence suggesting that a senior manager planned to terminate her immediately after receiving the OIG report—before the hearing had even been conducted (Freeman v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 23-03630 (AHA) (D.D.C. Sept. 22, 2025)).

The employee began working for Amtrak as a crew management representative in October 2015.

She separately operated a makeup business, providing services outside her Amtrak hours. After the employee was diagnosed with depression in August 2022, Amtrak approved her for medical leave through November 2022 and later extended that leave another three months.

Outside employment. Meanwhile, in October 2022, Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) received an accusation that the employee “may have engaged in outside employment while out on short-term disability.” OIG received a similar accusation about the employee working while on leave in December 2022.

Based on the accusations, OIG interviewed the employee. She acknowledged doing makeup for some people while on leave and said she did it as a hobby and form of therapy. According to the employee, her gross receipts for the period while she was on leave were in the range of $200 to $300.

Termination. The employee returned from medical leave in February 2023. Three months later, OIG issued a report finding the employee had engaged in outside employment while on medical leave in violation of Amtrak’s policies, including its code of ethics, short-term disability income policy, and medical leave and absences policy. A few days later, Amtrak issued her a notice of formal investigation for termination. Amtrak held an investigatory hearing on May 25, 2023.

Subsequently, the hearing officer determined that the employee had violated the code of ethics, the short-term disability income policy, and the medical leave and absences policy. She was issued a notice of termination.

The employee filed this suit alleging that Amtrak violated the ADA by terminating her employment. Amtrak moved for summary judgment, claiming that it terminated her because she violated company policy by engaging in outside employment while on medical leave.

Minor dispute. Amtrak argued that the employee’s ADA claim was precluded by the Railway Labor Act in light of the collective bargaining agreement between her union and Amtrak, and that no reasonable jury could find in her favor.

The RLA establishes a mandatory arbitral process for two types of disputes: “major” disputes, which relate to “the formation of collective [bargaining] agreements or efforts to secure them,” and “minor” disputes, which “gro[w] out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” Amtrak asserted that the employee’s ADA claim was a minor dispute that must go through the RLA’s grievance resolution process. The court disagreed.

Independent rights. The Supreme Court has recognized that “the RLA’s mechanism for resolving minor disputes does not preempt causes of action to enforce rights that are independent of the CBA.” Here, the employee’s asserted rights stemmed from the ADA, not from a right she is entitled to under the CBA.

Amtrak contended that the employee’s ADA claim was precluded because it is “inextricably intertwined” with the CBA. According to Amtrak, testimony at the investigative hearing related to whether the employee had violated Rule 11 of the CBA’s prohibition on employees engaging in other employment while on leave. Thus, Amtrak argued the court would be required to interpret the CBA to determine whether she violated Rule 11.

The court was unpersuaded because the record did not indicate that the decision to terminate the employee had anything to do with Rule 11 of the CBA. The notice of investigation said the employee’s conduct was alleged to violate Amtrak’s code of ethics. The hearing officer’s decision found that she had violated the code of ethics, the short-term disability income policy, and the medical leave and absences policy. And the notice of termination said she was being terminated based on the decision of the hearing officer. None of these documents mentioned Rule 11, and there was no indication that the meaning of the CBA was contested. So, the employee’s claim did not require the court to resolve any disputed interpretation of the CBA.

Preclusion. Moreover, Amtrak cannot trigger preclusion “merely by asserting certain CBA-based defenses to what is essentially a non-CBA-based claim... or by arguing that the action challenged by the plaintiff is ‘arguably justified’ by the terms of a CBA.” Its suggestion that the employee’s termination might have been justified under Rule 11 “boils down to asserting that its actions were permitted by the CBA,” and that does not make her claim precluded under the RLA.

Jury decision. Next, Amtrak asserted that it was entitled to judgment on the merits of the employee’s disability discrimination claim. Again, the court disagreed.

“[T]he two basic elements of a disability discrimination claim are that (i) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action (ii) because of the plaintiff’s disability.” To prevail, the plaintiff “must point to evidence tending to show the [defendant’s] justifications for one or more adverse employment actions are pretextual.”

The court must consider whether the employer has satisfied its burden to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Here, Amtrak articulated a facially credible reason for terminating the employee. It says it fired the employee because she violated company policies about outside work while on leave, and it supported that with evidence that OIG received accusations and conducted an investigation, followed by a hearing and findings to that effect. That explanation was clear and reasonably specific.

However, the employee introduced evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that Amtrak terminated her not because of a policy violation, but because she needed medical leave for her disability. While Amtrak insisted that the decision to terminate the employee was simply based on the OIG investigation and the hearing officer’s finding that she had violated company policy, she pointed to evidence suggesting that a senior manager planned to terminate her immediately after receiving the OIG report—before the hearing had even been conducted. So, a jury could decline to credit Amtrak’s argument that the termination was triggered only by the OIG investigation and the hearing officer’s decision.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the employee’s claim was not precluded, and a jury must resolve whether Amtrak discriminated against her based on her disability.

The case is No. 23-03630 (AHA).

Judge: Ali, A.

Attorneys: Kathryn Averwater (Casey Jones Law Firm) for Catresse Freeman. Alison N. Davis (Littler Mendelson) for National Railroad Passenger Corp. dba Amtrak.

Companies: National Railroad Passenger Corp.; Amtrak

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination CoverageLiability EmployeeLeave Labor UnionsMembers Procedure DistrictofColumbiaNews