The worker turned down every option, sued three defendants, and struck out on all claims
Amtrak offered him an accommodation, a testing alternative, and even reinstatement after firing him. He said no to all three.
A federal court in Washington, DC, dismissed the former train attendant’s entire lawsuit on October 19, 2026, finding no viable claim against any of his three defendants - Amtrak, a union, and former President Joe Biden.
The worker had spent years at Amtrak’s Chicago station when the company introduced its COVID-19 vaccination policy in August 2021. Employees with religious or medical objections could seek accommodations. The worker filed a religious objection that September. Amtrak approved it and placed him on 90-day unpaid leave.
In December 2021, Amtrak brought back weekly testing and invited him to return. He declined - testing, he said, also violated his beliefs. He wanted to come back under mask and sanitation rules only. Amtrak refused.
A formal noncompliance warning followed in June 2022. Then a disciplinary hearing. On July 13, the worker was terminated.
That October, Amtrak offered reinstatement on a “leniency basis” with seniority and vacation rights restored, provided he accepted responsibility and waived damages claims. He turned that down too.
Nearly three years later, he sued - naming Amtrak, the Transportation Communications Union/IAM, and Biden, with claims under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, a constitutional Bivens claim, DC fraudulent concealment law, and a federal conspiracy statute.
Every claim failed. The OSHA Act gives employees no private right of action to sue employers over safety standards or retaliatory discharge - that power sits with the Secretary of Labor. A constitutional damages remedy was unavailable because Congress had already provided alternative routes through Title VII and OSHA’s own complaint process. The worker had pursued neither.
Biden was shielded by absolute presidential immunity. The conspiracy claim rested on what the court called “nothing more than conclusory allegations.”
Then the union problem. The worker sued TCU/IAM, but his own filings showed he belonged to a different union - UNITE HERE Local 23. His counsel conceded the error but refused to drop TCU/IAM. The court dismissed for lack of standing and denied leave to add the correct union - the six-month limitation period had long expired.
For HR professionals, the case illustrates that a well-documented accommodation process - offer made, offer refused, next steps followed - is the strongest ground to stand on when a termination is challenged.
The complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Leave to amend was denied as futile. Unless a further amended complaint is filed by November 6, 2026, final judgment will enter.
