Pack v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Civil Action No. 3:24-0688 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 14, 2026) · United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division · January 14, 2026 · No. 3:24-0688

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia addresses CSX Transportation, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in Toby Pack's claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court denies summary judgment on Pack's retaliation claim, finding a reasonable jury could conclude that CSX's stated reason for terminating him was pretextual, but grants summary judgment on the interference claim and enters judgment for CSX on that claim.

Holdings

  1. Summary judgment was denied because Pack presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that CSX's asserted reason for terminating him—FMLA misuse—was pretextual.
  2. The court treated the interference and retaliation analyses as effectively merged under the circumstances presented and granted CSX's motion on the separate interference claim.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether CSX was entitled to summary judgment on Pack's FMLA retaliation claim.
  2. Whether Pack's FMLA interference claim should be analyzed separately from or merged with his retaliation claim.
  3. Whether CSX was entitled to judgment on the FMLA interference claim.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Bhattacharya v. Murray, 93 F.4th 675, 686 (4th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • Sharif v. United Airlines, Inc., 841 F.3d 199, 203, 206 (4th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Yashenko v. Harrah's NC Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541, 551 (4th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800-06 (1973)(followed)
  • Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147 (2000)(followed)
  • Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799, 807-08 (6th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • LaBelle v. Cleveland Cliffs, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-212, 2018 WL 7254247, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 27, 2018), aff'd, 784 F. App'x 437 (6th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., 681 F.3d 274, 282 (6th Cir. 2012)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…