JUDGE FINDS LIRR RETALIATED AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWER WHO REPORTED WAGE THEFT
AND FAILURE TO PERFORM SIGNAL TESTS
In a decision issued October 31, 2024, federal Administrative Law Judge Scott R. Morris found that the MTA Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR) had, in violation of federal law, retaliated against Signal Foreman Anthony Inganamorte for engaging in protected activity. Judge Morris awarded Inganamorte back pay, attorney’s fees, and compensatory damages in the amount of $125,000. (Attachment A).
In earlier legal action initiated in 2017, Inganamorte filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that the LIRR had disqualified him from the Foreman position in retaliation for his protected activity, including his reports of unsafe rail conditions and wage theft. The LIRR’s complacency towards safety has led directly to train derailments. Train derailments can have a catastrophic impact on passenger safety. Inganamorte’s litigation ended successfully with a decision by federal Administrative Law Judge Jonathan C. Calianos, on August 11, 2020, ordering the LIRR to reinstate Inganamorte to the Foreman position. (Attachment B).
Judge Morris found that the LIRR had subjected Inganamorte to GPS surveillance on the exact date that he returned to the foreman position pursuant to a court order and that this surveillance constituted a retaliatory personnel action under the National Transit Systems Security Act of 2007 (NTSSA). Judge Morris’ determination was driven, in part, by the suspect timing of the LIRR’s action, but he was also influenced by the conduct of LIRR’s legal counsel and management witnesses. (Attachment C).
Using particularly harsh language, Judge Morris found that the LIRR’s “contumacious conduct raised at least the specter of spoliation,” or the intentional destruction of evidence. He also held the railroad’s law firm responsible for engaging in motion practice that he characterized as “gamesmanship.” As Morris concluded, the LIRR’s “contumacious discovery behavior has prejudiced [Inganamorte’s] ability to prosecute” his case. He also described the testimony of LIRR’s management witnesses as “vague” and “obfuscatory.” (Attachment C at 7-9).
In one instance reported by Inganamorte, an LIRR signal inspector executed documentation indicating that he completed signal testing on the same day he was away from work on medical leave. As Judge Morris determined, Mr. Inganamorte brought the conflicting documentation to the attention of LIRR management “and management chose not to further investigate these events.” (Attachment A at 13).
In another instance, Mr. Inganamorte discovered, upon assuming the Foreman position of a test gang, that many signal tests had not been reviewed, or filled out properly, going back four months. Despite how overdue these tests were, the LIRR did not discipline his predecessor for the backlog. (Attachment A at 15).
Instead of commending Inganamorte for his safety report, Judge Morris found that the LIRR deliberately created a hostile work environment for Inganamorte, including disciplinary actions, surveillance, and forcing him and his signal inspectors into unsafe working conditions. (Attachment A at 21, 43).
The manner in which the LIRR retaliated also carried with it safety implications for the railroad’s operations. Judge Morris found that, since 2018, the LIRR has not had anyone test the emergency control system that backs up the microprocessor-based system controlling train movement at the railroad’s critical interlockings. A senior manager testified: “We didn’t have the manpower.” (Attachment A at 9-10). However, Mr. Inganamorte had volunteered his test gang to perform the work required to ensure that the emergency control system still functioned. Finding that the motive underlying the withholding of this safety sensitive work was retaliatory, Judge Morris awarded back pay. (Attachment A at 47).
“Anyone who rides the LIRR needs to be concerned about this,” commented Inganamorte’s attorney Lee Seham
“I have enjoyed representing Mr. Inganamorte because he is a man of unparalleled integrity,” said Seham. “He truly is a Boy Scout. For the LIRR to take adverse action against someone who makes safety his number one priority is unspeakable, particularly when the LIRR appears to turn a blind eye to individuals who violate these same safety standards.”
