Skip to main content

Stapleton v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

N.D. Ill.May 29, 2020No. 1:16-cv-00889
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
330 P.I.: 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

Wrongful TerminationRetaliationWhistleblower

Outcome

The court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the FRSA retaliation claim based on the safe harbor provision, but allowed the plaintiff's FELA negligence claim to proceed to bench trial. All four pending motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.

What This Ruling Means

**Stapleton v. Union Pacific Railroad Company** A railroad worker sued Union Pacific Railroad Company claiming he was wrongfully fired and that the company failed to accommodate his needs. The worker brought his case under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, which is a special law that protects railroad employees who get injured on the job. Before the trial began, both sides asked the court to exclude certain expert witnesses from testifying. Expert witnesses are specialists who provide professional opinions to help explain technical issues to the judge or jury. Union Pacific filed four separate requests to block the worker's expert witnesses from testifying at trial. The court rejected all of Union Pacific's requests, meaning the worker's expert witnesses will be allowed to testify when the case goes to trial. The judge will hear the case without a jury (called a "bench trial"). The final outcome of whether the worker was wrongfully terminated and denied accommodations has not yet been decided, as the trial is still pending. This ruling matters for workers because it shows courts may allow expert testimony that supports employees' claims about workplace injuries, accommodations, and wrongful termination, even when employers try to exclude such evidence.

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

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.