Case Name: Lisa Delise, ADMX. Of the Estate of Mark Delise v. Metro-North Railroad Co.
Date Decided: August 20, 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. District of Connecticut
Judge: Judge Thompson
Citation: WL 2568339 (D.Conn.)

Background:
Plaintiff Lisa Delise (“Delise”), brought this action on behalf of the Estate of Mark Delise, a former Metro-North Railroad Co. (“Metro-North”) employee, under FMLA, FELA, common law negligence, and wrongful death under the Connecticut Wrongful Death Statute.

The defendant, Metro-North, moved for Summary Judgment on all claims.

Issue:
Were Metro-North’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted?

Held:
The Court first held that Mr. Delise, the deceased, received the  Family and Medical Leave  Act (“FMLA”) leave he requested so he did not suffer any prejudice as the result of any interference with his FMLA right by Metro-North, accordingly Metro-North is entitled to summary judgment on the FMLA interference claim.

Delise also brought a FMLA Retaliation action. To make out a prima facie case a defendant must establish that (1) he exercised rights protected under the FMLA, (2) he was qualified for his position (3) he suffered an adverse employment action and (4) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of retaliatory intent. This Court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Delise was constructively discharged and suffered an adverse employment action, and also the fourth element. This Court denied Metro-North’s motion for summary judgment on Delise’s FMLA retaliation claim.

Metro-North also moved ford summary judgment on Delise’s FELA claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), which is granted and Negligent Supervision. Delise conceded that Metro-North was entitled to summary judgment on the IIED claim.

In order to demonstrate negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “knew or should have known prior incidents of propensities of an employee to commit such acts.

Metro-North argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Mr. Delise was not a Metro-North employee at the time he committed suicide and because the plaintiff cannot show Mr. Delise’s suicide was foreseeable.

Under FELA, former employees who where subject to conduct or conditions during their employment by a railroad that later results in injury can recover under FELA. The Court found that genuine isues of material fact existed as to the causation of Mr. Delise’s suicide, uncontrollable impulse or Metro-North’s conduct.

Also, Metro-North is granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s common law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress because the plaintiff did not produce evidence of events occurring during the resignation process or once Mr. Delise terminated his employment.

This Court denied Metro-North’s motion for summary judgment to Delise’s wrongful death claim because issues of material fact were presented whether Mr. Delise’s suicide was the result of an “uncontrollable impulse”.

Finally, Metro-North argued that the FELA and common law causes of action are precluded and pre-empted by the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”).

However this Court found that RLA’s mechanism for resolving minor disputes does not pre-empt causes of action to enforce rights that are independent of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Therefore merely because the CBA governs wrongful discharge claims it is not the only source of the right to assert the action in state tort law.

Accordingly, the Court denied Metro-North’s argument that plaintiff’s FELA and state law claims were pre-empted by the CBA.

Comment:
The plaintiff sued the railroad employer defendant under the Family Medical Leave Act, FELA, and state tort laws.

The burden for a party moving for summary judgment is that they must demonstrate based upon the evidence provided, construed in favor of the nonmoving party, that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Metro-North’s motion for summary judgment, while partially granted, failed to a majority of the claims because Delise presented evidence that created genuine issues of material fact.

Steve Gordon
http://www.Gordon-Elias.com