Date: 05-11-2023

Case Style:

Jeremy Hill v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Case Number: 2:21-cv-01720

Judge: R David Proctor

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Jefferson County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: Morris Wade Richardson and Morris Wade Richardson

Description: Birmingham, Alabama employment law lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant Federal Railroad Safety Act violation theory.


In this case, Plaintiff Jeremy Hitt has sued his former employer Defendant CSX. He claims CSX retaliated against him in violation of the Federal Rail Safety Act (“FRSA”). This matter is currently before the court on Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 26). The Motion has been fully briefed. (Docs. # 32, 38, 44). After careful review, and for the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 26) is due to be granted.

I. Background[1]

A. Plaintiff's Employment at CSX

Plaintiff Jeremy Hitt was employed by Defendant CSX from 2005 to January 2019. (Doc. # 31-13 at 5). Over the course of his nearly fifteen years working for Defendant, he served as a conductor, a remote-control operator (“RCO”), and a foreman. (Id.). At all times relevant to

2

this case, Plaintiff worked at Boyles terminal, a train yard in Birmingham, Alabama (“Boyles”). (Id.).

Plaintiff began at CSX working as a conductor, but was selected for a promotion to RCO in early 2006. (Id.). To become an RCO, Plaintiff underwent a combination of classroom and on-the-ground training. (Id.). This training required Plaintiff to learn the rules of operating a locomotive and to conduct simulations that included drills and real-life scenarios an RCO might encounter. (Id.). Brandon Lindsey, Blake Miller, and Dennis Duck were the CSX employees who conducted Plaintiff's training. (Id.). While training for the RCO position, Plaintiff learned that the safest speed at which a locomotive can travel when carrying a “cut” of cars (i.e., several cars coupled together) is 7 miles per hour. (Id.).

B. CSX's Disciplinary Process

Defendant's disciplinary process for non-management employees is as follows: first, when a rule violation is observed, a manager or group of managers drafts an “assessment,” which is a record describing the violation. (Doc. # 31-4 ¶ 2). Then, the violation is reviewed and classified by Field Administration as either a “major” offense or a “non-major” offense, which is defined in CSX's disciplinary policies. (Id.). CSX's recordkeeping system keeps track of the number of violations or offenses an employee has committed. (Id. ¶ 4). An employee who commits a second non-major offense may invoke his right to a hearing and face a potential three-day suspension if found guilty of the second offense, or he may waive his right to a hearing and receive a one-day suspension. (Id. at 9). An employee who commits a third non-major offenses in a three-year period faces a five-day suspension or termination. (Id. ¶ 4; p. 9).

Outcome: Because Plaintiff has failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on all of the elements of his FRSA claim, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on that claim. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be granted. A separate order will be entered.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: