Appeals Court Upholds Union Pacific Win in Retaliation Case

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that Union Pacific did not retaliate against employee Stephen Parr under federal rail safety law.

Updated on Nov. 6, 2026 in Unions

Appeals Court Upholds Union Pacific Win in Retaliation Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict for Union Pacific Railroad in a retaliation lawsuit brought by former employee Stephen Parr. The court also rejected Parr's challenges to the jury instructions used at trial.

Why it matters

The ruling leaves in place a verdict that Parr did not prove his case under the Federal Rail Safety Act, a statute protecting railroad workers who report safety concerns. It also illustrates how courts evaluate whether a complaint clearly identifies the protected activity behind an alleged retaliatory act.

The Eighth Circuit opinion, case number 25-3379, reviewed the district court's jury instructions and denial of a new trial. Parr's more than 260 combined complaints from 2018 to 2022 were central to the employer's argument, but the record does not show how many were ultimately found protected.

The players

Union Pacific Railroad

Union Pacific is one of the largest freight railroads in the United States, operating a major network across the western and central parts of the country.

Stephen Parr

Stephen Parr is a former Union Pacific employee whose federal retaliation claim under the Federal Rail Safety Act was rejected by a jury and affirmed on appeal.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

The Eighth Circuit is a federal appellate court covering several Midwestern and Plains states, and it issued the opinion affirming the verdict.

The details

Union Pacific hired Parr in 2015 and terminated him after a disciplinary hearing, citing conduct it characterized as quarrelsome, discourteous and insubordinate. A Public Law Board later reinstated him without back pay, and the Eighth Circuit found his complaint ambiguous about which protected activity allegedly led to retaliation.

2015: Union Pacific hired Stephen Parr and trained him on reporting lines.
2018 to 2022: Parr made more than 160 Safety Line and 100 manager complaints.
December 2022: General Manager Bell issued Parr a letter of counsel.
October 30, 2026: The Eighth Circuit filed its opinion affirming judgment for Union Pacific.

Legal Context

The decision applies the Federal Rail Safety Act's whistleblower protections, which bar carriers from retaliating against employees who report safety concerns. Appellate affirmances like this one show how courts scrutinize whether employees clearly tie their complaints to protected conduct.

Railroad employees who report safety problems are protected under federal law, but this ruling shows those protections depend on clearly identifying the protected complaint. Workers documenting concerns should record exactly what they reported and to whom.

The takeaway

Employees raising safety concerns should document which specific complaints are protected, since courts may require a clear link between the report and any later discipline. Keeping written records of each complaint and its recipient can matter in later litigation.