preview

SMART1 Task 3

Better Essays
Open Document

Mr. Carrion: The Complainant was hired on October 12, 1964. The last position he held at the Union Pacific was Thru Freight Conductor. He was assigned to the Western Transportation Region based out of Seattle, Washington. The Complainant is a member of the Sheet Metal Air Rail and Transportation Union (SMART). The position of Trainman is covered by the agreement between SMART and Union Pacific. Trainman is an umbrella term that encompasses other specific jobs such as Conductor, Brakeman, and Switchman. Trainmen often work independently and completing their job accurately is crucial to preventing derailments and collisions. The essential functions of a member of the Train Crew include, but are not limited to: Operating locomotive …show more content…

Allen failed to stop short of the flag placed by Mr. Larsen for the FTX test. Larsen reported that he has conducted approximately 40 tests in the Rail Yard where Mr. Allen was tested. Mr. Larsen said only one employee fail the test and that was Mr. Allen. Mr. Larsen reported that he places the “red flag” in the same spot on the track. The element of predictability is moot because Mr. Larsen does not conduct this FTX on a specific day or time. The locomotive operate must observe the red flag in order to react. Mr. Allen argued that there was debris in the yard that impacted his visual field. Larson reported that any environmental yard debris was the same for all individuals operating locomotives in the train yard. When others were tested the yard was in a similar state. There is no dispute the flag was hit by Mr. …show more content…

Allen could meet his prima facie case, which he cannot; Union Pacific had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its conduct. Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171, 1182 (7th Cir. 2013) (employee is unable to establish claim if employer shows legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its conduct). The Complainant failed to safely operate the equipment and failed a FTX designed to measure compliance with rules. The rules exist for safety and operational purposes. It is important to note it was not the singular actions that caused Mr. Allen’s discharge. It was the totality of his performance, and that he was already at a Level Four. See Johnson v. City of San Francisco Dep't of Pub. Health, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149684, at *28–29 (N. D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (finding the burden shifts to the employee to prove pretext once the employer offers a legitimate reason for its employment decision). Complainant has not shown that the Carrier’slegitimate non-discriminatory reasons for termination were pretextual for

Get Access
Related
Get Access