Case Explained: JODI ASAY v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL OPERATIONS, INC AND/OR NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL CORP.; BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN; JAMES P. BROWN

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 Docket: 2:19-cv-16503) The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., holding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). The court applied the FRSA’s burden-shifting framework, which requires a plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their protected activity was a “contributing factor” in the employer’s decision to take adverse action. A key legal standard established in this opinion is that to satisfy this requirement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that an individual who actually influenced or participated in the adverse employment decision had knowledge of the protected activity; it is insufficient to show that the employer as an entity knew of the activity. The court found no genuine issue of material fact because the record contained no evidence that any NJT employee involved in Asay’s suspension or termination knew she had reported unsafe “short turn” practices at a Liberty Mutual safety meeting. Testimony from relevant supervisors and compliance officers confirmed they did not attend the meeting, were unaware of its contents, or did not know which employees attended. The court further ruled that temporal proximity between the report and the subsequent disciplinary action was insufficient to create an inference of knowledge or pretext, and there was no evidence in the record showing that information from the Liberty Mutual forum reached the specific individuals responsible for firing Asay. Consequently, Asay could not prove that her protected activity was a contributing factor in her discharge. The practical consequence is that the summary judgment ruling stands, resulting in a dismissal of Asay’s FRSA retaliation claim without a trial on the merits. The case is closed with no further appellate review available unless a petition for rehearing or certiorari is granted by the Supreme Court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.