A former railroad employee claims he was wrongfully terminated after suffering heat stroke on the job and reporting his injury to his employer. The complaint, filed by Nicholas Hernandez in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on February 27, 2026, names Union Pacific Railroad Company as the defendant.
According to court documents, Hernandez worked as a conductor based in Tucson, Arizona for Union Pacific Railroad Company. The lawsuit alleges that on April 13, 2025, while assigned to inspect a hot bearing on a freight train near Benson, Arizona, Hernandez was required to walk over a mile in desert heat without specific guidance or training on hydration practices. After completing the inspection and returning to the train cab, Hernandez began feeling ill and requested medical treatment. He was taken to an emergency room where he received care for heat stroke.
The complaint states that following his discharge from medical care, Hernandez’s supervisor informed him that he would need medical clearance before returning to work. On April 16, 2025, Hernandez met with superintendent Marco Villareal to discuss the incident. During this meeting, Hernandez reported that he had not brought water with him during the inspection but had hydrated before and after performing his duties. He also submitted a written statement and completed an injury report.
On April 22, 2025, Union Pacific’s medical department cleared Hernandez to return to work. However, according to the filing, one day later he was notified that he was being taken out of service and charged with discipline for “being irresponsible of safety resulting in overexertion and dehydration.” The company accused him of violating internal rules regarding compliance with instructions and safety responsibilities despite what Hernandez describes as a lack of any specific instruction related to hydration or safe procedures for inspecting hot bearings in extreme conditions.
A disciplinary hearing took place on April 29, 2025. The complaint asserts that no clear explanation was provided at this hearing regarding which instructions were allegedly violated or how Hernandez acted unsafely beyond general claims of overexertion while performing his assigned job duties. On May 21, 2025, Union Pacific sent Hernandez a letter substantiating the disciplinary charges and terminating his employment.
Hernandez alleges that these actions violate protections under both the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). Specifically, he cites provisions of FRSA prohibiting retaliation against employees who report workplace injuries or request medical treatment: “A railroad carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce … may not discharge … or in any other way discriminate against an employee if such discrimination is due … to notify … of a work-related personal injury or work-related illness,” as well as prohibitions against disciplining employees for seeking medical care.
The complaint further claims that Union Pacific failed its duty under FELA by not providing adequate training or procedures for working safely in hazardous conditions such as desert heat during inspections. It states: “Defendants … owed the Plaintiff a non-delegable duty to provide him with a reasonably safe place in which to do his work” including proper tools and instructions about potential hazards.
After being terminated from employment with Union Pacific on May 21, 2025, Hernandez filed an FRSA complaint with the Secretary of Labor’s Whistleblower Office within 180 days as required by law. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began investigating but did not issue a final decision within 210 days; therefore Hernandez exercised his right under federal law to file suit directly in district court.
Hernandez seeks multiple forms of relief from the court including expungement of disciplinary records related to these events from his personnel file; reinstatement with full seniority rights; compensatory damages for mental distress; compensation for lost wages and benefits; punitive damages; special damages covering litigation costs including expert witness fees; as well as damages related specifically to physical injuries suffered during the incident.
The plaintiff is represented by attorneys Matthew E. Roston and Schuyler B. Sorosky of Roston Law Group APC. The case is identified as Case No. 4:26-cv-00117-JR.
Source: 426cv00117_Hernandez_v_Union_Pacific_Railroad_Company_Complaint_District_Arizona.pdf
