Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—D. Minn.: Railroad employee advances FRSA claim for interference with medical treatment, (Aug 24, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The temporal proximity between the events and the employee’s supervisors’ clear concern regarding the circumstances of his injury and his treatment were sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

An employee’s suit against a railroad company for interference with medical treatment under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) survived summary judgment. A federal district court in Minnesota ruled that genuine disputes of material fact remained as to whether the railroad company interfered with the employee’s medical treatment and as to whether heightened scrutiny on the employee after his injury constituted retaliation (Johnston v. Soo Line Railroad Company dba CPKC, No. 24-4394 (JRT/SGE) (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2026)).

Knee injury. On July 31, 2023, the employee injured his knee while working on behalf of his employer, a railroad company. At the ER, the doctor issued written instructions stating that the employee should return to work on August 2 after a day off “if he is feeling better” and said he could take up to 4000 mg of acetaminophen and 2400 mg of ibuprofen per day if needed.

Dissuaded. According to the employee, one of his superiors cajoled him to tell the doctor not to prescribe him pain medication while he was at the ER. He further alleged that his supervisor and another superior attempted to convince him to return to the emergency room to change the treatment plan on his discharge paperwork. Ultimately, the employee agreed to return to the emergency room and was driven there by a superior.

There was some disagreement on whether the superior or the employee asked the doctor to change the discharge paperwork, but ultimately the doctor altered the summary to state that the employee may return to work on August 1, and he crossed out the instructions regarding medications.

Assessments. In the eight days following the incident, the employee and his team were asked to participate in six assessments or “efficiency tests.” In the year before the incident, the employee and his team were required to complete between one and four efficiency tests per month, for a total of 32 over 12 months.

The employee failed one of the efficiency tests. The employee was concerned that he had been given a failing grade because of the situation related to his injury. On August 21, 2023, the employee resigned from his position. In his resignation email, he cited management persuading him to forgo treatment and the perceived retaliation as the reason for his decision.

Subsequently, the employee sued the railroad company, alleging: (1) interference with his medical treatment; and (2) retaliation against him after he suffered an injury, both of which constituted violations of the FRSA. The railroad company moved for summary judgment on both claims.

Interference with medical care. Under the FRSA, an employer may not “deny, delay, or interfere with the medical or first aid treatment of an employee who is injured during the course of employment.” The employee’s medical interference claim centered on the allegation that he was pressured to return to the emergency room to change his discharge instructions. More specifically, he attested that his supervisor drove him back to the emergency room, asked to see his doctor and asked the doctor to alter his discharge instructions relating to his recommended medication and when he could return to work.

In response, the railroad company argued that the supervisor’s presence at the employee’s hospital visit, standing alone, did not violate the FRSA. The railroad company also contended that the employee was allowed to pursue the course of treatment he desired, and that that the employee did not, in fact, want or need prescription pain medication.

Based on the record, there was some support for the contentions that the employee did not want pain medication, wanted to return to work the next day, and consented to be returned to the hospital. However, there remained genuine disputes of fact that must be resolved to determine whether the supervisor’s actions rose to the level of interfering with the employee’s medical treatment. Therefore, the court denied the railroad company’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s medical interference claim.

Retaliation claim. As to the retaliation claim, the FRSA prohibits a railroad carrier from disciplining or threatening to discipline an employee for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician. To prevail, an employee must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) the railroad company knew or suspected, actually or constructively, that he engaged in the protected activity; (3) he suffered an adverse action; and (4) the circumstances raised an inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action.

The railroad company disputed whether the employee suffered an adverse action and whether his protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action. The railroad company also argued that it could not be found liable because it would have taken the same actions—requiring the employee to undergo efficiency testing—regardless of his injury report.

Here, the court concluded that the employee established an adverse employment action sufficient to survive summary judgment. The employee attested that after returning to work, he felt that he had a “target on [his] back,” and felt that if he did “one little thing wrong, [he’d be] gone.” He stated this feeling was a result of “supervisors surrounding the work site for the next week,” including compelling him and his team to complete six “efficiency tests” during that period, one of which he failed. Moreover, that failure was logged in his employee file, and he was required to receive coaching and counseling.

A reasonable juror could find that the railroad company subjected the employee to actions that might well have dissuaded a reasonable employee from reporting his injury, the court found. It seems that a reasonable jury could alternatively conclude that the efficiency tests, entry of a failed test into his employee file, and coaching and counseling were a result of unsafe work practices and were not a retaliatory measure. But the court’s inquiry on this prong was centered on whether the employer’s conduct could have dissuaded an employee from reporting workplace injuries in the future. Because a reasonable juror could find that the railroad company’s workplace testing following his injury was a retaliatory tactic to dissuade reporting future injuries, there was a factual dispute regarding whether the employee suffered an adverse action, and summary judgment was not warranted.

Contributing factor. To prevail on a retaliation claim, the employee was required to also show that his protected activity—reporting his injury—was a contributing factor in the adverse action—the railroad company’s decision to subject him to multiple efficiency tests in the days after his injury. A contributing factor “includes any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the [adverse] decision.” The railroad company argued that the employee did not present evidence, beyond temporal proximity, that his injury report was a contributing factor to the increased frequency of efficiency tests.

But the court could not rule out retaliation, particularly in the context of his superiors’ evident concern with the circumstances surrounding the employee’s injury and treatment—to the point of returning him to the hospital to change his discharge instructions. Moreover, the employee testified that the way his supervisors treated him in the workplace changed after his injury. In light of this evidence, and absent a more compelling rationale for the uptick in scrutiny on the employee, a jury could conclude that the protected workplace activity was a contributing factor to subsequent efficiency tests and to his failing one of those tests. Accordingly, the court found that the employee met his burden to defeat summary judgment on the fourth element of a prima facie case of retaliation.

Moreover, the court concluded that the railroad company failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions in the absence of the employee reporting his injury. Specifically, it was not clear that the company would have required the same frequency of efficiency tests or would have given the employee his failing grade, absent his injury report.

In conclusion, the court found that disputes of material fact remained regarding whether the employee’s supervisors’ conduct following his injury constituted interference with medical treatment under the FRSA. Moreover, factual disputes remained as to whether his injury report contributed to the sharp increase in efficiency tests on the employee and his team and to the railroad company assigning him a failing grade on one of those tests. The temporal proximity between the events and the supervisors’ clear concern regarding the circumstances of the employee’s injury and his treatment were sufficient to defeat summary judgment, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the railroad company’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 24-4394 (JRT/SGE).

Judge: Tunheim, J.

Attorneys: Kathryn Averwater and Nicholas D. Thompson (Casey Jones Law) for Robert Johnston. Sharon S. Beck (Stinson) for Soo Line Railroad Co. dba CPKC.

Companies: Soo Line Railroad Co.; CPKC

Cases: Retaliation Safety MinnesotaNews