Daniel Leiva v. Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor

Summary

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of an Administrative Review Board (ARB) decision that a railroad's failure to expunge a prior disciplinary incident from an employee's file, as required by a settlement agreement, did not constitute a new retaliation claim under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). The court held that the employee failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the later disclosure of the incident, rejecting a "cat's paw" theory of causation where no evidence showed a retaliatory actor influenced the decisionmaker. The court applied arbitrary and capricious review to the ARB's factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions, affirming that the ARB's decision was not contrary to law.

Holdings

1. Leiva has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his July 2012 protected activity was a contributing factor in the decision to submit his file to the administrative body in 2016.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Union Pacific's failure to expunge the July 2012 incident and its submission in a later administrative proceeding constituted a new violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act.
2. Whether Leiva's protected activity in July 2012 was a contributing factor to the August 2016 submission under a cat's paw theory of causation.

Disposition

other