Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose, intent, or effect of which shall be to prevent employees of any common carrier from furnishing voluntarily information to a person in interest as to the facts incident to the injury or death of any employee, shall be void, and whoever, by threat, intimidation, order, rule, contract, regulation, or device whatsoever, shall attempt to prevent any person from furnishing voluntarily such information to a person in interest, or whoever discharges or otherwise disciplines or attempts to discipline any employee for furnishing voluntarily such information to a person in interest, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for each offense: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to void any contract, rule, or regulation with respect to any information contained in the files of the carrier, or other privileged or confidential reports.
If any provision of this chapter is declared unconstitutional or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and the applicability of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Notes of Decisions
Bruce C. Shrader v. Csx Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Shrader further maintained that his discharge was in violation of section 10 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), codified at 45 U.S.C. § 60 , which provides criminal penalties when an employer “prevent[s] employees .”
Winston B. Lewy v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 799 F.2d 1281 (9th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 5× “Hawaii 1976); and FELA section 10, 45 U.S.C. § 60 , which protects railroad employees from being disciplined in retaliation for furnishing information that may give rise to an FELA action.”
In Re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968).
· cites it 4× “1404 , 45 U. S. C. § 60 , which was enacted to encourage employees of common carriers to furnish information "to a person in interest," as to facts incident to the injury or death of an employee.”
Adler v. I & M Rail Link, L.L.C., 13 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Iowa 1998).
· cites it 10× “The Track Workers counter that their cause of action fits within the language of 45 U.S.C. § 60 of the FELA and that, in any event, a retaliatory discharge for filing a FELA claim is contrary to the public policy of the state of Iowa and as such is actionable.”
James E. Hendley v. Cent. of Georgia R.R. Co., 609 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1980).
· cites it 6× “Hendley alleged that the railroad’s actions violated 45 U.S.C. § 60 , which provides that it is a crime to discipline an employee for voluntarily furnishing information in connection with an FELA case.”
Tucker v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 849 F. Supp. 1096 (E.D. Va. 1994).
· cites it 9× “Specifically, Tucker relies upon 45 U.S.C. § 60 , which states in pertinent part: Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose, intent or effect of which shall be to prevent employees of any common carrier from furnishing voluntarily information to a person…”
Armando Gonzalez v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 773 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Gonzalez based his claim on a right of action implied from 45 U.S.C. § 60 . The full text of the statute is set forth in the footnote 2 but, in relevant part, it provides: Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose, intent, or effect of which shall be to…”
Bruce E. Hornsby v. St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co., 963 F.2d 1130 (8th Cir. 1992).
· cites it 7× “Louis Southwestern Railway Company for back pay and reinstatement under 45 U.S.C. § 60 (1988). The district court held that Hornsby’s action was for declaratory and equitable relief and should be tried to the court.”
Queensberry v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 157 F.R.D. 21 (E.D. Va. 1993).
· cites it 7× “Plaintiff specifically relies upon 45 U.S.C. § 60 , which states in pertinent part: Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose, intent, or effect of which shall be to prevent employees of any common carrier from furnishing voluntarily information to a…”
McCarthy v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 772 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 2× “If any provision of this chapter is declared unconstitutional or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and the applicability of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.