Skip to main content

Kaiser v. Union Pacific RR. Co.

Neb.May 24, 2019No. S-18-636
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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.

Outcome

Union Pacific Railroad prevailed on summary judgment in a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim under FELA. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kaiser failed to establish he was within the zone of danger of physical injury, which is required to recover for emotional distress.

What This Ruling Means

**Kaiser v. Union Pacific Railroad Company** This case involved an employment dispute between Kaiser and Union Pacific Railroad Company that was filed in Nebraska courts in May 2019. However, the available court records do not provide sufficient details about the specific nature of the workplace disagreement or what issues Kaiser raised against the railroad company. Unfortunately, the court's decision and reasoning cannot be determined from the limited information available in the case records. The outcome of this employment law case remains unclear, and no damages or monetary awards have been reported. **What This Means for Workers:** Without knowing the specific details or outcome of this case, it's difficult to draw clear lessons for workers. However, this case serves as a reminder that employment disputes with large employers like railroad companies do make their way through the court system. Workers facing workplace issues should know that legal options may be available to them, though each situation is unique. For workers in the railroad industry or other employment situations, it's important to document workplace concerns and understand that court cases can take time to resolve. If you're facing employment issues, consider consulting with an employment attorney who can explain your specific rights and options.

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

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Kaiser from the same court.

Similar Rulings

Huntsman
N.D. Cal.Dec 2025
Defendant Win
Vasquez
5th CircuitOct 2025
Defendant Win
Cromeens
D. Neb.Sep 2025
Defendant Win
Cruz
Ohio Ct. App.Jun 2017

intentional infliction of emotional distress, severe and debilitating, wrongful discharge, public policy, child abuse, remittitur, attorney fees, lodestar calculation, contingency fee agreement, deviation, sanctions, frivolous conduct, R.C. 2323.51, media. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict or JNOV where sufficient evidence was presented that defendant's conduct caused plaintiff severe and debilitating emotional distress whether plaintiff's evidence actually proved her case was for the jury to determine. Plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy survived defendant's motion for directed verdict and JNOV because the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy for wrongful termination when the defendants terminated her for not dissuading the report of child abuse. Trial court abused its discretion by ordering remittitur without considering any of the criteria that must be met before a court may grant remittitur, including that the plaintiff agreed to the reduction in damages. The trial court abused its discretion in limiting the review of attorney fees to only those incurred by the lead attorney and then deviating from the lodestar amount based solely on the contingency fee agreement. Contacting a media outlet to cover a trial does not constitute frivolous conduct in violation of R.C. 2323.51 where the information provided is protected speech and does not violate the ethical rules.

Mixed Result
Massey
N.D. OhioJan 2000
Plaintiff 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.