Ziparo v. CSX Transportation
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Vacated
The Second Circuit vacated summary judgment for CSX in a whistle-blower case under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, the panel held that an FRSA plaintiff need not prove the employer’s retaliatory intent; temporal proximity and other circumstantial evidence can satisfy the ‘contributing-factor’ test. Finding disputes of fact on both a retaliatory hostile-work-environment theory and on whether protected activity contributed to Ziparo’s firing, the court remanded for trial.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a plaintiff in a Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) whistle-blower suit must prove the employer’s retaliatory intent/animus to satisfy the statute’s “contributing-factor” causation element.
Circuit Positions
Contributing-factor standard is broad; employee need not prove employer’s retaliatory intent. Temporal proximity alone can suffice.
Employee must present evidence of employer’s retaliatory motive/animus; temporal proximity by itself is not enough.
Conflict Summary
The circuits disagree on whether the FRSA’s AIR-21 burden-shifting framework requires the employee to introduce evidence of the employer’s retaliatory motive. The Third and Ninth Circuits (and now the Second Circuit in this opinion) hold that no proof of employer intent is needed—the protected activity need only be a contributing factor, which may be shown by circumstantial evidence such as temporal proximity. The Seventh and Eighth Circuits continue to require some evidence of retaliatory intent or animus as part of the employee’s prima-facie case.