Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed an Administrative Review Board decision holding that the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation violated the Federal Railroad Safety Act by suspending an employee for excessive absenteeism after he followed a physician’s orders relating to an off-duty injury. The court held that 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c)(2) protects employees only in connection with injuries sustained during the course of employment and granted PATH’s petition for review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c)(2) protects an employee from discipline for following a treating physician's orders arising from an off-duty injury.
- Whether, assuming § 20109(c)(2) applies to off-duty injuries, sufficient evidence supported the finding that PATH disciplined Bala because of protected absences.
Holdings
- The Federal Railroad Safety Act's protection against disciplining an employee for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician applies only when the treatment relates to an injury sustained during the course of employment; it does not cover an off-duty injury.
- The ARB was not entitled to Chevron deference because traditional tools of statutory construction established that § 20109(c)(2) applies only to on-duty injuries.
Key quotations
“Reading subsection (c)(2) in context, we agree with PATH that only physicians’ orders which stem from on-duty injuries are covered.” (776 F.3d at 157)
“Generally, an “antiretaliation provision seeks to secure [the] primary objective” advanced by the substantive provision.” (776 F.3d at 162)
“Employing traditional tools of statutory construction, we have concluded that subsection (c)(2) applies only to on-duty injuries.” (776 F.3d at 170)
Factual background
Christopher Bala, a unionized PATH signal repairman, had a history of extensive absenteeism and had received repeated warnings that continued attendance problems could result in discipline. After experiencing back pain while moving boxes at home, his physician ordered him off work through July 2008. PATH then suspended him for up to six days without pay for violating its attendance policy, basing the suspension on his overall absences, including absences following the off-duty injury.
Procedural history
The Department of Labor ALJ found that PATH violated 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c)(2) and awarded Bala more than $1,000 in back pay. The Administrative Review Board affirmed in Bala v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., ARB Case No. 12-048, 2013 WL 5773495. PATH sought review in the Third Circuit, which granted the petition and remanded with instructions to dismiss the proceeding against PATH.
Remand instructions
The court granted PATH's petition challenging the ARB's September 27, 2013 order and remanded with instructions that the proceeding against PATH be dismissed.