U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan/photo by Carmen Natale

A federal judge has ruled that a former Amtrak worker can move ahead with a suit claiming he was fired based on mental health issues.

U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan of the District of New Jersey on Sept. 18 denied Amtrak's motion for summary judgment, finding sufficient factual disputes to allow that lawsuit filed by plaintiff David Rollins to move forward.

According to the decision, Amtrak fired Rollins, a 23-year veteran of the railroad, on Aug. 4, 2015. Rollins, a resident of the Bronx, had for 10 years been a supervisor and was in charge of a night crew working on track maintenance. He worked in an Amtrak facility in North Brunswick.

Part of his job was to coordinate with the day-shift supervisor in order to ensure the continuity of work. In March 2015, Rollins met with an assistant day-shift supervisor, Josh Newbold, who was temporarily filling in for the normal day supervisor.

The two became involved in a verbal altercation over what was described as a safety issue, but Newbold did not report the incident, according to the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Rollins called Amtrak's “Operation RedBlock,” an early intervention program geared toward helping employees going through crisis situations. Rollins, according to the ruling, said he was suffering from stress, that his marriage was in trouble, and that he was trying to deal with a son's cancer illness.

Later that night, Amtrak police arrived at Rollins' work site and asked if he was suicidal. Although he denied having suicidal feelings, the police took Rollins to a hospital, and he was placed on medical leave, according to the decision.

The following day, Newbold reported the earlier verbal altercation to his superiors.

By July 2015, Amtrak-retained doctors said Rollins was “fit for duty” and “emotionally stable,” Sheridan noted.

Nevertheless, Rollins claims he was prevented from returning to work because Newbold told his supervisors that Rollins, during the altercation, appeared to be suicidal. Amtrak fired Rollins because he had violated the railroad's “standards of excellence,” the decision said.

Rollins filed his lawsuit in federal court in July 2016, primarily arguing that Amtrak violated the federal Rehabilitation Act.

Amtrak moved to dismiss the case on summary judgment, saying Rollins had failed to demonstrate an act of discrimination.

Sheridan disagreed, based partly on the timing of the events.

“Considering Newbold's delay in reporting, Amtrak's actions dramatically and quickly occurred after disclosure of plaintiff's suicidal tendencies,” Sheridan said. “One can plausibly argue that Newbold and Amtrak management were motivated by discriminatory animus.

“A jury may determine that the request for psychological services was the motivation to seek Rollins' dismissal,” Sheridan said.

“A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party,” he said.

Rollins' attorney, Locksley O'Sullivan Wade, welcomed the ruling.

“What Amtrak did was wrong,” said Wade, who heads a firm in New York. “They chose to believe someone else's story over my client after 23 years on the job.”

Amtrak's lead attorney, Stacey Adams of the Newark office of Littler Mendelson, didn't return a call seeking comment.