Skip to main content

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen v. Union Pacific Railroad

N.D. Ill.October 16, 2007No. Case 07 C 160
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
George W. Lindberg
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
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

The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability, finding that Union Pacific's FMLA leave calculation method based on "starts" violates the FMLA and Department of Labor regulations, which require calculation based on "hours worked" for employees with variable schedules.

What This Ruling Means

**Railroad Workers Win Case Over Family Leave Calculations** This case involved a dispute between railroad workers and Union Pacific Railroad over how the company calculated Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) time off. Under FMLA, eligible workers can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family or medical reasons. However, for employees with irregular schedules, companies must calculate this leave based on the actual hours they typically work, not just the number of times they report to work. Union Pacific was calculating FMLA leave based on "starts" - meaning each time an employee began a work shift counted the same, regardless of how long that shift lasted. The railroad workers' union argued this was wrong because their members work varying shift lengths, and this method shortchanged workers of their full FMLA entitlement. The court sided with the workers, ruling that Union Pacific's calculation method violated federal law. The judge found that FMLA leave must be calculated based on actual "hours worked" for employees with variable schedules, not simply the number of work periods. **Why this matters for workers:** This ruling protects employees with irregular schedules from having their family leave time unfairly reduced. Companies cannot use shortcuts that deny workers their full FMLA benefits - they must use proper hour-based calculations.

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.