Niedziejko v. Del. & Hudson Ry. Co., 1:18-CV-0675 (GTS/CFH)
| Decision Date | 27 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 1:18-CV-0675 (GTS/CFH) |
| Parties | EDWARD NIEDZIEJKO, Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE & HUDSON RY. CO., INC., d/b/a Canadian Pac. Ry., Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
JERRY MARTILLOTTI & ASSOCIATES, PC
Counsel for Plaintiff
GERARD J. MARTILLOTTI, ESQ.
MICHAEL D. BILLOK, LLP
TRACEY H. DONESKY, ESQ.
NICOLE FAULKNER, ESQ.
Currently before the Court, in this Federal Railway Safety Act action filed by Edward Niedziejko ("Plaintiff") against Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, Inc. ("Defendant"), is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (Dkt. No. 12.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted.
A. Standard Governing Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction ................................................................................................... 54
B. Standard Governing Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim .... 54
C. Standard Governing Motion for Summary Judgment ............................. 58
D. Standard Governing Plaintiff's Claims and Defendant's Defenses ....... 61
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges as follows. (Dkt. No. 1.)
Before late 2015, Plaintiff was hired as a Special Agent in Defendant's Police Department. (Id.) Starting in late 2015, the number of police officers available to staff Defendant's Police Department was reduced (due to Defendant's closure of a section of its Police Department in Taylor, Pennsylvania, as a result of a sale of part of Defendant's business in August of 2014). (Id.) Subsequently, in 2015 and 2016, this reduction was exacerbated by work injuries and retirements. (Id.) Because of these reductions, at any given time, there were three or fewer special agents or police officers available to staff Defendant's Police Department for the entire Eastern United States, including Upstate New York. (Id.) As a result, on several occasions, Plaintiff worked a full shift and then, either before returning home or a short time after arriving home, was required to return to work to respond to a call to work for an additional period lasting several hours. (Id.)
Starting on or about March 30, 2016, and continuing into June of 2016, Plaintiff complained to his supervisors, union representatives, and colleagues about safety issues resulting from the aforementioned reduction in staffing and requirement of excessive overtime. (Id.) More specifically, Plaintiff complained that being required to work for extended periods of time without adequate rest of days off posed safety issues to the Albany Police Unit of the Canadian Pacific Railway starting in the fall of 2015. (Id.) Plaintiff's fellow employees, including Michael Savokinas, joined in these complaints. (Id.) However, rather than take steps to resolvePlaintiff's concerns, Plaintiff's supervisors made it known that any safety complaints would lead to trouble for the person making them. (Id.) Plaintiff responded by letting it be known that he was going to have Defendant's staffing policy evaluated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"). (Id.)
Immediately thereafter, Defendant initiated its first-ever review of the shotgun logs of its special agents, including Plaintiff, from October 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. (Id.) Pursuant to Defendant's policy (which was put in place in 2009), shotgun logs were to be kept by all special agents who carried a shotgun, and were to be reviewed and signed by all supervisors. (Id.) Since 2013, Plaintiff had not filled out a shotgun log because he had not regularly carried a shotgun. (Id.) Defendant conducted an intensive investigation of Plaintiff in June of 2016, then brought disciplinary charges against him for (1) not logging out a shotgun in August 2015 (three months before the beginning of the audit period), and (2) violating the shotgun log policy in March 2016 based on the testimony of his supervisor (to whom Plaintiff had made a safety complaint). (Id.) No similar investigation was made against Defendant's other employees, despite the fact that Plaintiff's direct supervisor (Sergeant Seymour) himself was found to have not reviewed shotgun logs on a monthly basis as required by the policy. (Id.) After finding Plaintiff guilty of the disciplinary charges, Defendant reprimanded him. (Id.)
On June 9, 2016, while on duty as a special agent working for Defendant, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant's dispatcher directing him to go Mechanicsville, New York, to investigate a report of teenage trespassers allegedly placing debris on the train tracks. (Id.) Plaintiff responded to the call, worked with local law enforcement, and checked the area formore than an hour. (Id.) After determining that the area was clear, Plaintiff called the train crew on the radio and was informed that the train had passed the area without any issue. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff closed the call and deemed the issue resolved. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff's supervisor, Commander Szymaszek, inquired about the events in Mechanicsville, and Plaintiff advised him that the matter had been resolved without issue. (Id.)
On June 19, 2016, Defendant brought a disciplinary charge against Plaintiff for deceit in his conversation with Commander Szymaszek based on the fact that Plaintiff had not responded to the actual location of the call. (Id.) After being informed of the charges, Plaintiff informed his supervisors that the dispatcher had sent him to the wrong location. (Id.) Plaintiff's supervisor listened to the dispatch tape and found that Plaintiff had indeed been sent to the wrong location. (Id.) However, Defendant did not provide this information to Plaintiff or his representatives. (Id.) Instead, after an investigation and hearing, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment. (Id.)
Generally, based on these factual allegations, the Complaint asserts the following two claims: (1) a claim that Plaintiff was discriminatorily reprimanded for reporting, in good faith, a hazardous safety condition in violation of the Federal Railway and Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20109(1)(A) ("FRSA"); and (2) a claim that Plaintiff was discriminatorily terminated for reporting, in good faith, a hazardous safety condition, also in violation of the FRSA. (Id.)
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts were asserted and supported by Defendant in its Rule 7.1 Statement and not successfully denied by Plaintiff in a Rule 7.1 Response that both matched the paragraphs of Defendant's Rule 7.1 Statement and specifically cited the recordwhere the factual issue arises, as required by Local Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court. (Compare Dkt. No. 15 [Def.'s Rule 7.1 Statement] with Dkt. No. 24 [Plf.'s Rule 7.1 Response].)
1. The Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, Inc. d/b/a Canadian Pacific ("CP" or "D&H") is a Class I railroad providing freight rail transportation services in parts of the United States. On September 18, 2015, CP sold the southern portion of the D&H to another Class I Railroad, which covered 280 miles of Defendant's rail track and included operations in Pennsylvania. Since the fall of 2015, CP has operated only in New York.1
2. To ensure and promote railway safety, Defendant has its own "CP Police Services" ("CPPS") railway law enforcement agency that works closely with communities, other law enforcement, and government agencies across the rails where it operates. CPPS's mission is to protect CP's employees, property and passengers, and the lading of its customers. CP operates 24 hours per day and 7 days per week.2
3. CPPS has police detachments in various locations in the U.S., which provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial