Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Home > Blog > Railroad Injury > Can the Railroad Retaliate Against Me for Following my Doctors Orders When My Medical Problem Happened Off Duty; Part 1 of 3

Can the Railroad Retaliate Against Me for Following my Doctors Orders When My Medical Problem Happened Off Duty; Part 1 of 3

Part 1

It seems pretty obvious, if you have an injury or illness outside of work, and your doctor prescribes certain treatment, the law should protect you for following your doctor’s orders. A common part of a doctor’s medical treatment plan for someone with a serious injury, is to take them out of work. As anyone who works for a railroad knows, railroads can have harsh and punitive attendance policies. If you miss too much work, no matter the reason, the railroad may be looking to discipline you, or even terminate you.

But attendance-related discipline for people who are seriously ill or injured outside of work is wrong. Employees should be able to follow a doctor’s order not to work And again, the reason seems pretty obvious, because the safety of railroad employees, rail passengers, and those living and working near railroad tracks and yards, should be more important than forcing an ill or injured employee to come to work, just so he or she can avoid attendance-related discipline. Without legal protection, it’s clear what will happen – injured and ill employees will report to work to avoid attendance discipline, and endanger themselves and the public.

It would also seem pretty obvious that a law like the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) should protect employees with non-work related medical conditions. After all, the stated purpose of the FRSA is, “to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents.” And subsection (c)(2) of the FRSA seems to do just that: “A railroad carrier…may not discipline…an employee…for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician…”

Well then, the law does what it’s supposed to do and everyone’s covered for their non-work related medical conditions – right? Wrong. We’ll see what went awry in Part 2.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn