Background
Dale Gourneau worked as a carman for BNSF Railway Company, inspecting railroad cars for compliance with safety regulations. After BNSF terminated him following a January 2020 disciplinary proceeding, Gourneau filed a whistleblower complaint with the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. He alleged that BNSF retaliated against him for reporting in good faith a hazardous safety condition, in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act.
Following an administrative hearing, an administrative law judge ruled for Gourneau and ordered reinstatement, backpay, damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Department’s Administrative Review Board affirmed. BNSF petitioned the Eighth Circuit for review, arguing that an administrative agency’s determination of liability and award of legal remedies denied the company its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit held that BNSF preserved its constitutional objection by specifically raising the Seventh Amendment in its petition to the Administrative Review Board. On the merits, the court concluded that Gourneau’s retaliatory-discharge claim was legal in nature because it was analogous to common-law breach-of-contract and tort claims and sought traditionally legal remedies, including backpay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
The court further held that the claim did not fall within the public-rights exception permitting agency adjudication without a jury. Gourneau’s dispute concerned an alleged breach of duty by one private party against another and was a standalone claim rather than an incidental component of a broader regulatory proceeding. The court also emphasized that the statute itself permits employees, under specified circumstances, to bring the same type of claim in federal court and allows either party to demand a jury.
The Seventh Amendment therefore entitled BNSF to a jury trial on liability, backpay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages before adjudication of the equitable reinstatement claim. The court granted BNSF’s petition for review, vacated the Board’s May 21, 2025 order, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Key Takeaways
- A Federal Railroad Safety Act retaliatory-discharge claim seeking backpay and compensatory or punitive damages is legal in nature and implicates the Seventh Amendment.
- The public-rights exception does not cover a standalone retaliation dispute between private parties merely because Congress placed it within an administrative enforcement scheme.
- An agency may not finally determine liability and legal damages on such a claim without affording the employer a jury trial; equitable reinstatement must await resolution of the legal claims.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the Department of Labor’s ability to adjudicate railroad-whistleblower retaliation claims administratively when the proceeding seeks legal damages. Applying the Supreme Court’s public-rights framework, the Eighth Circuit treated the substance of the private-party claim and requested remedies—not its placement in a federal regulatory statute—as controlling the jury-trial analysis.
The ruling may prompt constitutional challenges to similar administrative schemes in which agencies adjudicate retaliation or employment claims resembling traditional common-law actions and award monetary relief.