BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos

BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 4, 2019
Full case nameBNSF Railway Co. v. Loos
Docket no.17-1042
Citations586 U.S. ___ (more)
Holding
A railroad's payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable "compensation" under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg
DissentGorsuch, joined by Thomas


BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a railroad's payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable "compensation" under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.[1][2]

Background

Michael Loos sued BNSF Railway Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for injuries he received while working at BNSF’s railyard. A jury awarded him $126,212.78, ascribing $30,000 of that amount to wages lost during the time Loos was unable to work. BNSF asserted that the lost wages constituted "compensation" taxable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) and asked to withhold $3,765 of the $30,000 to cover Loos’s share of the RRTA taxes. The district court and the Eighth Circuit rejected the requested offset, holding that an award of damages compensating an injured railroad worker for lost wages is not taxable under the RRTA.[1]

Opinion of the Court

Commentators observed that Justice Ginsburg's majority opinion avoided reference to Chevron deference, perhaps because that was necessary to achieve a majority. In dissent, Justice Gorsuch criticized Chevron and praised the majority for seemingly ignoring it.[2]

Subsequent developments

References

  1. 1 2 BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos, No. 17-1042, 586 U.S. ___ (2019).
  2. 1 2 Hemel, Daniel (March 4, 2019). "Opinion analysis: The doctrine that dare not speak its name". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 8, 2025.

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.

This page is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.