No specific laws identified for this ruling.
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.
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.
Other orders and opinions in BLET. from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 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.