Skip to main content

Tischer, Jessica v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

W.D. Wis.September 30, 2020No. 3:19-cv-00166
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Federal Employer's Liability
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

Union Pacific prevailed on summary judgment. The court granted the employer's motion, finding that while Union Pacific had a duty to assist Jacob Tischer when he showed signs of stroke, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the delay in calling 911 contributed to his death, thus failing to establish causation required for FELA liability.

What This Ruling Means

**Railroad Worker Safety Case Against Union Pacific** Jessica Tischer, a railroad worker, filed a lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). FELA is a special law that allows railroad workers to sue their employers when they're injured on the job due to the company's negligence. This law is different from regular workers' compensation and applies specifically to railroad employees. The case was filed in 2020, but the available court records don't provide enough information to determine what specific injury or safety issue led to the lawsuit, or how the court ultimately ruled. **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights an important protection for railroad workers. Unlike most employees who must use workers' compensation systems, railroad workers can file FELA lawsuits directly against their employers when workplace injuries occur due to company negligence. This gives railroad workers potentially more control over their cases and the possibility of higher compensation than traditional workers' comp claims. Railroad workers should know they have these special legal rights under FELA and may want to consult with attorneys who specialize in railroad injury cases if they're hurt at work.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Huntsman
N.D. Cal.Dec 2025
Defendant Win
Vasquez
5th CircuitOct 2025
Defendant Win
Cromeens
D. Neb.Sep 2025
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.