Beall v. S. Fla. Reg'l Transp. Auth.
| Decision Date | 01 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:16-cv-24050-GAYLES/LOUIS |
| Parties | RICHARD C. BEALL, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TRI-RAIL, VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC., also known as Transdev, and DANIEL CARTER STOKES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (“SFRTA”) and Tri-Rail's Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 56]. The Court has considered the Motion and the record, heard oral argument and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow the Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND[1]
This action stems from a multi-year legal battle between Plaintiff Richard C. Beall, a former locomotive engineer, and Defendant Veolia Transportation Service, Inc.[2] (“Veolia”), his former employer, because of a safety test Veolia conducted that resulted in Plaintiff's engineer certificate being revoked and Plaintiff being terminated. In the instant Motion, SFRTA-the public agency that contracted with Veolia to operate the Tri-Rail service-moves for summary judgment in its favor as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the National Transit Systems Security Act (the “NTSSA”), 6 U.S.C. § 1142.
Pursuant to Chapter 343 of the Florida Statutes, SFRTA is a public agency authorized to provide commuter rail transportation to Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. As an operating railroad, SFRTA is obligated to report to the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”). The commuter rail service SFRTA provides is commonly known as Tri-Rail. While the parties dispute whether “SFRTA sponsors the Tri-Rail service . . . [or] operates the service, ” [ECF No. 57 at 1 ¶ 2], SFRTA contracts with third parties to provide all operational functions for the Tri-Rail service.[3] These operational functions include hiring and supervising locomotive engineers, conductors, and other staff, and performing equipment maintenance, right-of-way safety inspections, dispatching, and testing.
From July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2017, SFRTA contracted with Veolia to operate the Tri-Rail service. Veolia's responsibilities included hiring and training locomotive engineers and other operational staff, as well as conducting safety and fitness testing for locomotive engineers and other employees.[4] Although it contracted with Veolia, SFRTA maintained control and authority over certain aspects of the Tri-Rail service. These included: (1) providing the locomotives and rolling stock for its Tri-Rail operations, with the Tri-Rail name attached; (2) maintaining the power to reject Transdev's General Manager without cause; (3) designating the Operating Rules that Transdev must comply with; (4) requiring Transdev to comply with SFRTA's System Safety Program; (5) requiring Transdev to operate in accordance with SFRTA's train schedules, timetables, and passenger service policies; (6) maintaining oversight of Transdev's performance, including the performance and testing of Transdev's personnel, and requiring testing to be acceptable to SFRTA; (7) approving the uniform dress standards of Transdev crew members; (8) requiring Transdev to train crew members on SFRTA's rules, regulations, and procedures, and to enforce them; (9) maintaining the right to change the Tri-Rail train schedule; (10) approving Transdev's Operating Plan, Annual Reports, System Safety Program, annual audits, and monthly and daily reports; (11) requiring any investigation of a Tri-Rail service accident to be done in accordance with SFRTA procedures; and (12) having authority over and responsibility for the dispatching of trains and certification of engineers and conductors operating its Tri-Rail service as of March 2015. However, SFRTA did not have a contractual or employment relationship with Veolia's employees.
Although SFRTA provides commuter rail transportation through the Tri-Rail service, the tracks on which the Tri-Rail service operates were previously owned by CSX Transportation (“CSX”). As a result, CSX maintained authority and responsibility over several functions, including: (1) dispatching trains; (2) maintaining the tracks, switches, and right-of-way; and (3) barring individuals from working on trains operating on the tracks based on safety or other concerns. On March 29, 2015, SFRTA assumed responsibility of these functions. See [ECF No. 57-1 at 2 ¶ 7].
Prior to his termination, Plaintiff worked as a locomotive engineer for Veolia; he was never employed by SFRTA. Between 2008 and 2012, Plaintiff repeatedly reported safety concerns to Veolia regarding the visibility of warning signs along the rail line. Plaintiff proposed including flashing lights of the same color as the warning boards and signs to aid locomotive engineers in seeing the warning from several miles away. Plaintiff first raised these concerns to SFRTA at town hall meetings hosted by SFRTA in 2009 and 2010 at its headquarters.[5] Although Allen Yoder and Bradley Barkman, SFRTA's Director of Operations from 2009 to 2017, attended the town hall meetings, neither they nor any SFRTA staff recall hearing Plaintiff's statements about the warning signs.[6] SFRTA staff also did not recall informing other SFRTA employees of the substance or facts of Plaintiff's statements.
On September 26, 2012, Veolia conducted a locomotive engineer test consisting of placing a warning sign next to the tracks. SFRTA did not assist in planning or executing the test. During the test, Plaintiff failed to slow down or respond to the warning sign while operating a train.[7] Following an investigation and hearing, Veolia determined that Plaintiff violated Operating Rule 44, dismissed Plaintiff, and revoked his locomotive engineering certificate. SFRTA had no role in the proceedings or decision to discipline and terminate Plaintiff; however, SFRTA was aware of his engineer certificate being revoked. On October 11, 2012, CSX issued an order that barred Plaintiff from accessing the tracks because of Veolia's determination that Plaintiff violated Operating Rule 44. SFRTA did not take part in the CSX decision.
In response to Veolia revoking Plaintiff's engineer certificate, Plaintiff appealed the decision to the FRA. The FRA conducted a de novo review of Veolia's decision and, on April 7, 2014, determined that: (1) the test was improper; and (2) Plaintiff's engineer certificate should not have been revoked. The FRA also rejected Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Veolia for lack of evidence demonstrating that retaliation factored into the test.[8] SFRTA was not a party to and did not participate in the FRA proceedings; however, the FRA's decision as to Plaintiff's engineer certificate was binding on SFRTA. Following the FRA decision, Veolia did not reinstate Plaintiff's engineer certificate or rehire him as an employee.
Plaintiff also challenged Veolia's termination through his union. The challenge went to arbitration and the arbitrator determined that Veolia's decision to terminate Plaintiff was excessive. Veolia appealed the decision to this Court, and this Court remanded the matter for further consideration before the arbitrator. On remand, the arbitrator affirmed his decision and Veolia again appealed the decision to this Court. On September 28, 2016, this Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, see Veolia Transp. Servs., Inc. v. United Transp. Union, No. 13-CIV-24125, 2016 WL 5405636 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016), which Veolia appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. On August 16, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this Court. See Veolia Transp. Servs., Inc. v. United Transp. Union, 695 Fed.Appx. 535 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Throughout Plaintiff's legal challenge through his union, Veolia maintained that it would not reconsider its decision to not reinstate Plaintiff as an engineer until the arbitration and subsequent litigation concluded. SFRTA, however, was not a party to, and did not participate in, the challenges and subsequent arbitration or appeal Plaintiff's union pursued.
In March 2015, CSX gave up control of the tracks on which the Tri-Rail service operates. As a result, SFRTA gained authority over the certification of engineers for the South Florida railroad corridor-including the ability to lift Plaintiff's bar. On April 3, 2015, Veolia emailed Mr. Barkman to inform SFRTA of the status of the arbitration and to ask whether SFRTA would maintain CSX's bar of Plaintiff. Veolia did not disclose the FRA decision, nor did SFRTA ask for the FRA's position on Plaintiff's de-certification.[9] On August 7, 2015, Veolia again wrote to SFRTA to ask if SFRTA intended to continue CSX's bar. The letter provided a brief background on the test Veolia conducted on September 26, 2012, and the status of the arbitration proceedings. Again, Veolia did not refer to the FRA decision.[10] On September 15, 2015, SFRTA responded to Veolia's letter and confirmed that it would not lift the CSX bar.[11] The parties, however, dispute whether the SFRTA staff who decided to continue the CSX bar knew of Plaintiff's prior complaints and whether those complaints contributed to SFRTA's decision to continue the bar. Compare [ECF No. 57 at 4 ¶ 27], with [ECF No. 69 at 5].
On January 22, 2016, Plaintiff attended SFRTA's Governing Board Meeting and made statements regarding the safety complaints he previously made, the FRA's decision determining that his de-certification was improper, and Veolia's refusal to reinstate him. Plaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial