Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—M.D. Fla.: CSX’s disparaging comments about former employee could constitute impermissible blacklisting, (Jun 9, 2026)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The alleged statements were clearly intended to cast the former employee in a negative light.

Denying CSX’s motion for summary judgment on a former employee’s Federal Railroad Safety Act retaliation claim, a federal district court in Florida found he presented a prima facie case of retaliation in the form of blacklisting. He engaged in protected activity by sending a letter to the CEO outlining concerns about the company’s reporting of derailments. After he resigned and worked at other companies, CSX made disparaging statements about him to his new employers. The court found CSX failed to respond to the alleged blacklisting or offer any evidence that it would have placed the post-employment phone calls in the absence of his protected activity (Moss v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-257-WWB-LLL (M.D. Fla. June 8, 2026)).

The former employee worked as the Chief Engineer North for CSX. In late 2021, CSX experienced a series of derailments. In responding to the incidents, the employee felt his supervisor and other executives were applying pressure and asking employees to falsely report the costs of the derailments to avoid having to report them to the Federal Railroad Administration.

Letter to CEO. In January 2022, the employee sent a letter to the CEO of CSX and several board members outlining his concerns regarding the reporting of derailments. A few days later, attorneys with a law firm scheduled an interview with the employee to discuss his letter. He felt the interview was adversarial in nature and that the attorneys were attempting to discredit him and his claims.

Resignation. After being sent to New York to assist crews to prepare for a snowstorm, the employee began to feel he was likely to be terminated based on the events that had transpired since he submitted his letter. On February 6, 2022, he sent an email to his supervisor that he was “retiring from CSX.”

Post-CSX jobs. After he resigned, the former employee was employed by Herzog, a railroad-related company that acted as a vendor to CSX. He testified that, sometime in the summer of 2022, his former supervisor called Herzog’s COO and spoke disparagingly of him and stated he was not permitted to contact anyone at CSX in the course of his duties with Herzog.

In September 2022, the former employee left Herzog for Amtrak. CSX’s assistant vice president found out he intended to work for Amtrak and contacted an Amtrak executive. He told the executive that the former employee left on bad terms and that he had CSX “up to [their] eyeballs in attorneys investigating” the company. The vice president also said the former employee was banned from CSX’s property.

Complaint filed. Thereafter, the employee filed a complaint against CSX for retaliation in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). CSX filed this motion for summary judgment.

Claims at issue. As a threshold matter, the court first discussed what claim was at issue in this litigation. CSX argued the employee was limited to a claim for constructive discharge, while the employee argued that he had alleged a number of actionable adverse employment actions and a retaliation claim.

The court agreed with the employee that, along with references to constructive discharge in his factual allegations, he had referenced acts of retaliation. He also specifically alleged two acts of post-resignation retaliation. If he intended to limit his pleading to only constructive discharge, the court said, such allegations would offer little to no support for his claim as actions taken post-employment cannot contribute to a constructive discharge. Therefore, the court found he had alleged both constructive discharge and general retaliation under the FRSA.

Retaliation. Turning to the FRSA retaliation claim, the court denied CSX’s motion for summary judgment because the employee presented a prima facie case of retaliation in the form of blacklisting. The court found that CSX failed to respond to the alleged blacklisting or offer any evidence that it would have placed the post-employment phone calls to his new employers in the absence of his protected activity.

After he resigned from CSX, the employee was employed by Herzog. He testified that in the summer of 2022, his former supervisor called Herzog’s COO and spoke disparagingly of him and stated that he was not permitted to contact anyone at CSX in the course of his duties with Herzog. Although the former supervisor disputed the call, he testified that he frequently spoke with a higher up in Herzog on business matters and did inform him that CSX was happy with its current representative.

The employee also testified that around August 30, 2022, CSX’s assistant vice president called an Amtrak executive and told him that the employee left on bad terms. He also mentioned the employee had CSX “up to [their] eyeballs in attorneys investigating” the company, and that he was banned from the property. The vice president did not dispute the call, conceded the alleged statement was accurate, and admitted he informed the Amtrak executive that the employee’s departure from CSX was not made under good conditions.

Blacklisting. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the phone calls to the former employee’s subsequent employers and potential employers constituted impermissible blacklisting. Although there was no indication that Herzog was made specifically aware of the employee’s protected activity, the alleged statements were clearly intended to cast him in a negative light and cause damage to his reputation in the industry, the court said.

With respect to Amtrak, the vice president could not recall mentioning the attorneys and interviews but also did not deny that it might have been discussed, directly linking his call to the protected conduct. A reasonable jury could infer these calls were made with ill intent toward the former employee.

Accordingly, the court denied CSX’s motion for summary judgment on the former employee’s FRSA retaliation claim.

The case is No. 3:25-cv-257-WWB-LLL.

Judge: Berger, W.

Attorneys: Richard Errol Johnson (Law Office of Richard E. Johnson) for Donald Lee Moss. Joseph C. Devine (Baker & Hostetler) for CSX Transportation, Inc.

Companies: CSX Transportation, Inc.

Cases: Retaliation Discharge Safety FloridaNews