US Labor Board Upholds NYC Transit Whistleblower's Win
Lawyers for New York had argued the National Transit Systems Security Act doesn't protect workplace safety complaints, only matters affecting the general public.
August 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM
4 minute read
Updated at 2:38 p.m.
A federal labor appeals board on Tuesday upheld a ruling that said the National Transit Systems Security Act provides anti-retaliation protections to municipal workers who report concerns about workplace safety and not just matters affecting the general public.
The ruling by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board upheld a lower judge’s decision that the New York City Transit Authority had challenged as wrongly decided. The department backed the transit employee, Janathan Harte, who worked in a shop that built subway track-related items and who had made complaints about alleged safety hazards.
Harte’s case was closely watched as a test of the scope of the federal National Transit Systems Security Act, or NTSSA, which says public transportation agencies cannot take certain retaliatory or discriminatory actions against public transit workers. New York’s legal team, which included Robert Drinan, executive agency counsel at NYC Transit, argued the law concerns matters broadly affecting the general public.
The three-judge labor review board said the NTSSA refers to “safety” many times “without reference or limitation to public security or terrorism.” The law covers employees who raise concerns about workplace safety hazards, the panel concluded.
“We note that the plain language of the NTSSA protects an employee who reports safety and security concerns and is not limited to actions involving public safety or threats of terrorism,” the labor appeals panel said.
The NYC Transit’s general counsel was not immediately reached for comment Wednesday.
Harte’s lawyer, Charles Goetsch, who is based in New Haven, Connecticut, said in an email: “The significance of the ARB’s decision is that for the first time the ARB is explicitly confirming the NTSSA applies to the safety of transit employees in their workplaces and not just to the safety of transit passengers in public places.”
In a blog post in 2016, when an administrative law judge ruled for Harte, Goetsch said “there have been very few decisions under the NTSSA, no doubt due to a pervasive culture of intimidation and retaliation that discourages whistleblowing by subway and bus workers.”
The U.S. Department of Labor in 2016 filed a brief in support of Harte. “The Assistant Secretary disagrees with respondents’ narrow interpretation of the scope of protected activity under the Act,” the department’s attorney, Christine Han, said in the friend-of-the-court filing. “NTSSA protects acts related not only to the safety and security of public transportation but also to workplace safety hazards affecting employees of transit systems.”
The administrative law judge awarded Harte $1,656 in compensatory damages for “wages lost as a result of the adverse employment action taken” by NYC Transit. The transit agency’s lawyers had argued that Harte suffered no adverse employment action based on his safety complaints.
Harte, according to the judge, spent a combined six vacation and two personal days pursuing claims of retaliation. The appeal board upheld the compensatory award. The board also awarded $7,698 in attorney fees to Harte’s lawyer, who had asked for about $11,000 at an hourly rate of $600.
The Administrative Review Board’s decision is posted below:
This post was updated with comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
SEC Under Trump 2.0 Likely to Take More 'Measured' Enforcement Approach, Observers Say
Decision of the Day: Attorney in Social Security Case Awarded Fees, But Must Pay Client Refund Under Equal Access to Justice Act
Trending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250