Griggs v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., Inc.

14 Citing cases

  1. Christie v. Ingram Barge Co.

    671 F. Supp. 3d 833 (M.D. Tenn. 2023)

    Ingram seeks dismissal of the Jones Act claims on the basis that they are effectively subsumed by Title VII, citing Griggs v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 900 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1990), and cases construing it. Ingram also contends that the unseaworthiness claim must be dismissed, because "damages not compensable under the Jones Act [are] likewise not compensable under a theory of unseaworthiness."

  2. Smolsky v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

    780 F. Supp. 283 (E.D. Pa. 1991)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that a Title VII claim does not preclude a claim under FELA

    Basically, the defendant argues that since the plaintiff is claiming sexual discrimination and harassment, she should not be able to also claim that the defendant negligently inflicted emotional distress upon her as a result of this discrimination. The defendant finds support for this argument in Griggs v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 900 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1990). However, a careful reading of Griggs demonstrates that it does not apply to this case.

  3. Masiello v. Metro-North Commuter R.R.

    748 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that ulcer was a physical injury caused at least in part by physical contacts, such as being "uninvitingly kissed, hugged, grabbed, and physically lifted off the ground"

    Although Schneider dealt with the duration of "employment" for purposes of the FELA, and Gallose, Burns, and Hartel with the foreseeability element of negligence, they all implicitly recognized that their respective underlying actions were cognizable under the FELA. Defendants cite Griggs v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., Inc., 900 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1990), in support of their position that plaintiff's claim should be barred since it should have been brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and not under the FELA. The plaintiff in Griggs sued under the FELA, claiming that her employer, Amtrak, negligently permitted racial and sexual discrimination and harassment directed at her.

  4. Wilson v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.

    939 F.2d 260 (5th Cir. 1991)   Cited 114 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting records under Fed.R.Evid. 803 despite the custodian of records's failure to testify that the records were accurate

    A. Sexual harassment under the Jones Act Although Zapata did not raise this issue below or in its brief, Zapata has subsequently brought to this Court's attention the recent Sixth Circuit opinion in Griggs v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Inc., 900 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1990), which held that a worker's claim of sexual harassment is not cognizable under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). Because the Jones Act incorporates by reference the FELA, Zapata asserts that Wilson's claim is also barred, and urges this Court to adopt the Sixth Circuit's position. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) provides that if "pertinent and significant authorities" come to a party's attention after its brief is filed or after oral argument, but before an opinion has been rendered, the party may "promptly advise the clerk of the court, by letter, with a copy to all counsel, setting forth the citations."

  5. Wahlstrom v. Metro-North Commuter R. Co.

    89 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 135 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a plaintiff failed to state a cause of action under the New York City Human Rights Law because the plaintiff did not allege that any cognizable harassment occurred while the train on which she worked was within New York City, even though she and the male engineer traveled together in New York City, the train company's headquarters was in New York City and the company distributed employment policies from its office there

    See Metro-North Mem. at 22-24. Although there is no legislative history suggesting that Congress had any thought of providing a remedy for sexual harassment in enacting FELA, see Griggs v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 900 F.2d 74, 76 (6th Cir. 1990), the Supreme Court has recognized that "the general congressional intent was to provide liberal recovery for injured workers, and . . . Congress intended the creation of no static remedy, but one which would be developed and enlarged to meet changing conditions and changing concepts of industry's duty toward its workers." Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426, 432, 78 S.Ct. 394, 2 L.Ed.2d 382 (1958).

  6. Stripling v. Ingram Barge Co.

    3:22-cv-00645 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 9, 2023)

    Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of this action as violative of the doctrine against claim splitting, or, alternatively, dismissal of the Jones Act claims and unseaworthiness claims as barred pursuant to Griggs v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., Inc., 900 F.2d 74, 75 (6th Cir. 1990), and Szymanski v. Columbia Transp. Co., 154 F.3d 591, 596 (6th Cir. 1998). (Doc. Nos. 6, 7)

  7. Tressler v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

    819 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that the plaintiff had stated a plausible claim for constructive demotion where she alleged that she "took a position as a yard engineer for lower pay rather than face continued harassment"

    Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957). Defendant argues that the FELA is preempted by Title VII, relying primarily on Griggs v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., Inc., 900 F.2d 74 (6th Cir.1990). Griggs, however, is inapposite.

  8. Higgins v. Metro-North R.R. Co.

    143 F. Supp. 2d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)   Cited 9 times
    Denying recovery to plaintiff who was slapped on the buttocks

    This is especially true when the sexual harassment or discrimination included allegations of common law assault. See, e.g., Wahlstrom v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 89 F. Supp.2d 506, 515-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Masiello v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 748 F. Supp. 199, 204 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); see also Wilson v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 939 F.2d 260, 265 (5th Cir. 1991) (recognizing a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress for sexual harassment under the Jones Act, which incorporates FELA by reference); but see Griggs v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., Inc., 900 F.2d 74, 75 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that claims of racial and sexual harassment was not cognizable under FELA, because "FELA was not designed to create new substantive torts but to protect railway workers in federal court from common law torts."). In this case, plaintiff did not assert a claim for sexual harassment under Title VII.

  9. Pappas v. Bethesda Hosp. Ass'n

    861 F. Supp. 616 (S.D. Ohio 1994)   Cited 15 times
    Rejecting American with Disabilities Act claim against administrator of health insurance plan after noting lack of allegation that employer "delegated any of its duties regarding employee benefits" to administrator

    To allow a plaintiff to bring a ยง 1985(3) claim alleging a conspiracy based on the same facts as the plaintiff's Title I claim would undermine the remedies Congress provided within the ADA. The Sixth Circuit followed this view in Griggs v. Nat'l Railway Passenger Corp., 900 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1990), in which the court held that a railway worker could not bring an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act based on allegations that were cognizable under Title VII. In Griggs, the court stated that "we should be reluctant . . . to read an earlier statute broadly where the result is to circumvent the detailed remedial scheme constructed in a later statute."

  10. Hays v. Patton-Tully Transp. Co.

    844 F. Supp. 1221 (W.D. Tenn. 1993)   Cited 39 times
    Finding in context of Title VII sexual harassment claim that " negligent supervision claim cannot be based solely upon an underlying claim of sexual harassment per se, because the effect would be to impose liability on employers for failing to prevent a harm that is not a cognizable injury under the common law."

    Sexual harassment has never been a common law tort; as a cause of action, it is a statutory creation. Griggs v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 900 F.2d 74, 75 (6th Cir. 1990). A negligent supervision claim cannot be based solely upon an underlying claim of sexual harassment per se, because the effect would be to impose liability on employers for failing to prevent a harm that is not a cognizable injury under the common law.