Bell v. CSX Transp.

MEMORANDUM

James K. Bredar, United States District Judge.

Plaintiffs-a group of 63 current and former employees of Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”) residing across 15 states-have brought this action alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (ECF No. 104.) This case was stayed for several years while the unions representing the Plaintiffs pursued related arbitration proceedings against CSX. Those arbitrations have since concluded, and CSX has moved for summary judgment in its favor. The Motion is fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary.^[1] See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2023). For the reasons set forth below, CSX's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 91) will be denied.

The Court will begin by providing a synopsis of the lengthy procedural history of this case. The Court will then discuss the tactual background of the case, including a summary of CSX's internal investigations and the related arbitration proceedings. Finally, the Court will

analyze CSX's two arguments for why summary judgment should be granted: (1) that the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and (2) that issue preclusion attaches to the arbitral fact-findings and forecloses the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court will explain why both contentions are unavailing, I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case has had a long and tortured procedural history to date. The origins of the issues central to the pending Summary Judgment Motion lie in the holiday season surrounding Christmas 2017 and New Years Day 2018. CSX is a railroad company that operates a 365-day-a-year business, meaning employees are sometimes expected work on weekends and holidays. (ECF No. 104 at 2.) However, a group of employees who were scheduled to work over this holiday period took time off, purportedly for FMLA leave.^[2] CSX purportedly did not believe that the employees were actually using the time off for FMLA purposes, but instead accused the employees of dishonestly using FMLA leave to avoid having to work over the holidays. As a result, CSX suspended or terminated the employees after an internal investigation. (Id. at 3.)

In March 2018, Plaintiffs, at that point consisting of twenty current or former CSX employees, filed a Complaint in this Court alleging violations of the FMLA. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs made three contentions in the initial Complaint: (1) that CSX unlawfully inflated the amount of time employees were charged for taking FMLA leave (the “inflation claims”); (2) that CSX's attendance policy, known as the CSX Transportation Attendance Points System (“CAPS”) punished employees for taking FMLA leave (the “CAPS policy claims”); and (3) that CSX improperly disciplined employees who took FMLA leave during the holiday season from

Christmas 2017 through New Years Day 2018 (the “holiday-season leave claims”). (Id. at 2-3.) In June 2018, Plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint, adding 21 additional plaintiffs and raising new claims. (ECF No. 20.)

Discovery began in June 2018 and was initially scheduled to be completed by December of that same year. (ECF No. 18; see also ECF No. 91-1 at 3 (CSX stating that “the parties engaged in extensive discovery including dozens of depositions and the exchange of thousands of pages of documents”).)

In November 2018, the Court stayed proceedings with respect to the holiday-season leave claims, pending the conclusion of factually related arbitration-discussed in more detail below- under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) and the collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) between CSX and the unions representing Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 40.) Meanwhile, Plaintiffs sought leave to file a second amended complaint to add a further 23 new plaintiffs (before the Court had yet ruled on their first motion for leave to amend), and the Court denied this motion without prejudice in December 2018. (ECF No. 45.)

In May 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of CSX with respect to the inflation claims and the CAPS policy claims, finding that the undisputed evidence showed that CSX did not improperly inflate the amount of FMLA time charged and that CSX's CAPS attendance policy did not violate the FMLA. Bell v. CSX Trans., Inc., Civ. No. JKB-18-0744, 2019 WL 2146917 (D. Md. May 16, 2019). (ECF Nos. 50, 51.) As a result, the inflation claims and CAPS policy claims are no longer at issue in this case; the sole remaining claims are the holiday-season claims.

In that same May 2019 ruling, the Court also denied as premature CSX's motion to dismiss or strike Plaintiffs' class allegations, without prejudice to CSX raising its opposition

again if Plaintiffs sought class certification. (Id.) Finally, the Court mostly denied Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a second amended complaint, except with respect to Plaintiffs' request to add 23 additional Plaintiffs who claimed that they were disciplined for taking FMLA leave. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect to these Plaintiffs when the stay was lifted. (Id.) The Court issued a subsequent order in July 2019, clarifying that, once the stay was lifted, Plaintiffs could seek leave to amend their complaint to incorporate the proposed plaintiffs from both the first and second proposed amended complaints. (ECF No. 55.)

Meanwhile, counsel for Plaintiffs filed a similar case in the Middle District of Florida, representing five additional plaintiffs. Billingsley v. CSX Trans., Inc., Civ. No. 3:19-858-J-39JBT (M.D. Fla.). That case was transferred to the District of Maryland upon CSX's motion, see Billingsley v. CSX Trans., Inc., Civ. No. 20-858-JK.B, and was subsequently consolidated with the instant case in May 2020. (ECF No. 63.)

Following the Court's May 2019 decision, this case entered an essentially dormant period while the Plaintiffs' holiday-season claims wended their way through arbitration. Those proceedings concluded by August 2023, and accordingly the Court directed CSX to file an appropriate dispositive motion or explain why such a motion would not be proper. (ECF Nos. 89, 90.) In response, CSX filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs' remaining claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the RLA and that in any event Plaintiffs are precluded from relitigating the same issues regarding the holiday-season FMLA claims that were already decided in arbitration. (ECF No. 91-1.)

The Court lifted the stay in this case on April 1, 2024, and directed Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint that would add the parties proposed to be added in Plaintiffs' earlier motions for leave to amend the complaint (which had been previously denied without prejudice).

(ECF No. 96.) Plaintiffs filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 101), which was granted.^[3] (ECF No. 103). At the same time, the Court also granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to substitute estate administrators for two Plaintiffs who have died during the pendency of this action. (ECF No. 102.)

The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint, which was filed on April 23, 2024. (ECF No. 104.) Although the First Amended Complaint is styled as a class action, Plaintiffs have not moved for class certification, so each Plaintiffs claims are currently being pursued on an individual basis.^[4]

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The parties agree on the basic outline of how CSX's internal review and the subsequent arbitrations unfolded. After CSX accused the Plaintiffs of abusing FMLA leave, CSX held internal hearings to determine whether to discipline them. (ECF No. 92 at 4.) After the internal hearings, CSX suspended or fired most of the charged employees. Plaintiffs then brought this action. (Id.) Roughly contemporaneously with the filing of this lawsuit, the unions representing the Plaintiffs brought claims in arbitration, alleging violations of the collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) between the unions and CSX. (Id. at 4-5.) The arbitrators, who were organized into panels of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and Public Law Board

(“PLB”), then reviewed the findings of CSX's internal procedures.^[5] The arbitrators' review was limited to the record generated during CSX's internal proceedings. (Id.; ECF No. 93 at 16.)

CSX's internal investigations were conducted pursuant to the CBAs between the Plaintiffs' unions and CSX. The CBAs provide that no employee can be disciplined without just cause and without a fair and impartial hearing. (Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen (“BLET”) System Agreement, Art. 30.A. 1 (ECF No. 93-2 at 14); 2010 United Transportation Union Agreement, Art. 10 §l.A.l (ECF No. 93-2 at 23); 1994 United Transportation Agreement, Rule 17(a) (ECF No. 93-2 at 32),) Two of the CBAs grant engineers and conductors the right to request documents for review prior to the investigation. (BLET System Agreement, Art. 3O.B.4.f (ECF No. 93-2 at 17); 2010 United Transportation Union Agreement, Art. 10 § 2.A.4T (ECF No. 93-2 at 26).) Two of the CBAs also specify that employees or their representatives have the right to identify any witnesses “known to have material facts,” and that CSX must allow these witnesses time off of work so that they can attend the hearings. (BLET System Agreement, Art. 30.B.l.d (ECF No. 93-2 at 15-16); 2010 United Transportation Union Agreement, § 2.A.l.d (ECF No.93-2 at 24).) A third states that charged employees “shall have reasonable opportunity to secure the presence of necessary witnesses and shall have the right to be there represented by counsel of his choosing.” (1994 United Transportation Agreement, Rule 17(a) (ECF No. 93-2 at 32).)

The process for...