Lee Seham

A decision by federal Administrative Law Judge Morris finding that the LIRR took adverse action against a whistleblower and appears to have willfully withheld evidence. JUDGE FINDS LIRR TOOK ADVERSE ACTION AGAIN WHISTLEBLOWER; RAILROAD’S LAW FIRM CONDEMNED FOR “GAMESMANSHIP” AND APPARENT “WILLFUL WITHHOLDING OF EVIDENCE” In a decision issued July 20, 2023, federal Administrative Law Judge Scott R. Morris found that the MTA Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR) had taken adverse employment action against Foreman Anthony Inganamorte. Judge Morris based his finding, in part, on the “gamesmanship” of LIRR’s law firm – Hoguet, Newman, Regal & Kennedy – and that the facts supported the conclusion that the LIRR had engaged in the “willful withholding of evidence.” (Attachment A). In 2017, Inganamorte filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that the LIRR had disqualified him from the Foreman position in retaliation for his protected activity, including his reports of unsafe rail conditions and wage theft. The LIRR’s complacency towards safety has led directly to train derailments. Train derailments can have a catastrophic impact on passenger safety. Inganamorte’s litigation ended successfully with a decision by federal Administrative Law Judge Jonathan C. Calianos, on August 11, 2020, ordering the LIRR to reinstate Inganamorte to the foreman position. (Attachment B). Judge Morris found that the LIRR had subjected Inganamorte to GPS surveillance on the “exact date” that he returned to the foreman position pursuant to a court order and that this surveillance constituted a cognizable adverse personnel action under the National Transit Systems Security Act of 2007 (NTSSA). Judge Morris’ determination was driven, in part, by the suspect timing of the LIRR’s action, but he was also influenced by the conduct of LIRR’s legal counsel and management witnesses. Using particularly harsh language, Judge Morris found that the LIRR’s “contumacious conduct raised at least the specter of spoliation,” or the intentional destruction of evidence. He also held the railroad’s law firm responsible for engaging in motion practice that he characterized as “gamesmanship.” As Morris concluded, the LIRR’s “contumacious discovery behavior has prejudiced [Inganamorte’s] ability to prosecute” his case. He also described the testimony of LIRR’s management witnesses as “vague” and “obfuscatory.” “If you have nothing to hide, there is no need to withhold and/or destroy evidence,” commenced Inganamorte’s counsel Lee Seham. “It is obvious that the LIRR has a lot of hide.” “I have enjoyed representing Mr. Inganamorte because he is a man of unparalleled integrity,” said Seham. “He truly is a Boy Scout. To take adverse action against someone who makes safety his number one priority is unspeakable, particularly when the LIRR appears to turn a blind eye to individuals who violate these same safety standards.”