ST. LOUIS — A longtime railroad employee has filed a federal lawsuit alleging he was wrongfully terminated because of his military service, claiming his employer violated federal protections for service members.
Garrett Senciboy claims BNSF Railway Company unlawfully discharged him in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which prohibits discrimination against employees based on military obligations, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Senciboy, who worked for BNSF from 2005 until his termination in 2023, alleges that his dismissal was motivated at least in part by his service in the Missouri Air National Guard.
The lawsuit states that after he enlisted in 2021 and completed extensive training in 2022, his supervisor made hostile remarks about his military commitments and expressed frustration over his absences for service-related duties.
The complaint outlines two separate incidents that led to Senciboy’s termination, both of which he claims were based on weak or pretextual allegations.
The first incident involved a September 2023 train derailment in Arkansas. Although no one was injured, Senciboy was accused of causing the derailment by improperly handling a track switch.
He denies responsibility, and the lawsuit states that the company lacked sufficient evidence, failed to produce promised video footage, and allowed him to continue working immediately after the incident, actions the complaint argues are inconsistent with standard procedure if fault had been established.
Senciboy was dismissed following that incident, but in January, a Public Law Board convened under the Railway Labor Act found the evidence insufficient to support the accusation and overturned that termination.
Despite that ruling, Senciboy remains out of work due to a second termination issued in December 2023.
This dismissal stemmed from allegations that he had been dishonest in using a company leave code designated for National Guard duty.
Senciboy initially requested military leave for scheduled training in May 2023, but altered his plans after learning that his father-in-law had suffered a stroke, according to the suit.
He informed a company representative of the situation and did not request additional military-related pay for the time he did not serve, the lawsuit states.
The complaint contends that the dishonesty allegation is unfounded and that Senciboy was transparent about the change in circumstances.
It further alleges that the company used the claim as a pretext to justify his termination after the earlier derailment case proved unsustainable.
An arbitration panel later upheld the second dismissal, but the lawsuit argues that the proceedings were flawed.
Senciboy was unable to attend the arbitration hearing due to technical issues, and the panel relied on a lower standard of proof, declining to fully consider his arguments or evaluate whether the punishment was disproportionate, according to the filing.
The complaint also points to what it describes as disparate treatment, noting that another conductor involved in a more serious incident that resulted in a fatality received a significantly lesser disciplinary penalty and had no history of military service.
Throughout his tenure, Senciboy had received multiple awards and recognitions for safety and performance, and his record before the incidents was described as largely successful.
The lawsuit alleges that both dismissals occurred after an extended period of military training and followed remarks from his supervisor criticizing his enlistment and service obligations.
It claims these factors demonstrate that his military service was a motivating factor in the adverse employment actions, in violation of federal law.
Senciboy is seeking reinstatement or front pay, back pay for lost wages, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. He is represented by Michelle Alvarado Salermo, Joseph D. Wilkinson II and Sean C. Timmons.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case number: 1:26-cv-00045
