BNSF R. Co. v. Loos
The Supreme Court ruled that when a railroad pays an injured worker for wages lost due to an on-the-job injury, that payment counts as taxable "compensation" under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, just like ordinary pay.
The decision means railroads can withhold retirement taxes from the lost-wages portion of injury judgments and settlements, resolving a split among lower courts over how to treat this money.
How it got here: The trial court and the Eighth Circuit both rejected BNSF's requested tax offset; BNSF asked the Supreme Court to resolve a split among courts on the issue.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Michael Loos was injured while working at a BNSF Railway railyard and sued the company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. A jury awarded him $126,212.78, including $30,000 for wages he lost while unable to work. BNSF wanted to withhold part of that $30,000 to cover Loos's share of retirement payroll taxes, arguing the lost-wages award counted as taxable pay.
The question before the Court
When a railroad pays an injured worker for wages lost because of an on-the-job injury, does that money count as taxable pay under the federal railroad retirement tax law?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Supreme Court ruled that a railroad's payment to an injured worker for lost wages counts as taxable "compensation" under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. Because the tax law's definition of taxable pay closely mirrors the Social Security system's definition of taxable wages, the Court applied its earlier rulings holding that pay tied to the employment relationship is taxable even when it covers time the employee wasn't actively working, such as backpay for a wrongful firing.
The Court reasoned that damages for lost wages after a workplace injury work the same way: they replace earnings the employee would have received but for the employer's wrongdoing, so they still flow from the employment relationship. The Court rejected arguments that such injury-related payments should be treated differently from other forms of pay for time not worked, or that they should escape taxation the way personal-injury damages escape ordinary income tax.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Railroad workers who win damages for lost wages after an on-the-job injury will now have retirement taxes withheld from that portion of their award, slightly reducing what they take home, while also adding to their credited earnings for future retirement benefits. Railroads must continue withholding these taxes going forward, affecting how injury settlements and judgments are structured nationwide.
What changes now
The case is sent back to the Eighth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the ruling, meaning BNSF may now withhold the disputed retirement tax amount from Loos's lost-wages award. Because this is a final merits decision, railroads nationwide can rely on the ruling going forward when handling FELA settlements and judgments involving lost wages.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Gorsuch
“When an employee suffers a physical injury due to his employer’s negligence and has to sue in court to recover damages, it seems more natural to me to describe the final judgment as compensation for his injury than for services (never) rendered.”The dissent's central objection that injury damages aren't pay for services performed.
Justice Gorsuch argued that damages for a workplace injury are compensation for the injury itself, not for 'services rendered,' since no one would call falling and hurting a knee a service performed for the employer. He pointed to Congress's deliberate removal of 'pay for time lost' language from the statute in 1975 and 1983 as evidence lawmakers meant to exclude such damages from taxable compensation. He would have affirmed the lower courts and let Loos keep the full lost-wages award untaxed.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court compared the RRTA's definition of taxable 'compensation' to the nearly identical definition of taxable 'wages' under the Social Security payroll tax system (FICA), since both systems were created around the same time for similar retirement-funding purposes.
- Relying on its earlier decisions in Social Security Bd. v. Nierotko (which held that backpay for a wrongful firing counts as taxable wages) and United States v. Quality Stores (which held severance pay counts as wages), the Court held that pay tied to the employment relationship counts as taxable compensation even when it covers a period the employee wasn't actively working.
- Applying that principle, the Court reasoned that a railroad's injury-related pay for lost work time is functionally the same as backpay: it substitutes for wages the employee would have earned but for the employer's wrongdoing, so it flows from the employer-employee relationship.
- The Court rejected the Eighth Circuit's narrower reading that 'compensation' only covers pay for services actually performed, noting that the RRTA's specific listed exclusions for certain sick pay and disability pay would be pointless if all pay for time not worked were already excluded.
- The Court also rejected the argument that personal-injury damages should be tax-exempt here because they're exempt from ordinary income tax, explaining that the RRTA taxes a specially defined 'compensation' base, not 'gross income,' and Congress never extended the personal-injury exclusion to that base.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Social Security Bd. v. Nierotko (327 U.S. 358)
The Court relies on Nierotko's rule that backpay for lost work time counts as taxable wages to reach the same result here.
Reaffirms United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. (572 U.S. 141)
The Court relies on this case's broad reading of taxable wages to support taxing lost-wage injury damages.