BNSF Railway, a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary and one of North America’s largest freight railroads, has been the defendant in a broad set of major lawsuits covering biometric privacy, asbestos exposure, worker injuries, employment discrimination, tribal treaty rights, and environmental contamination. The outcomes range from a $75 million class-action settlement over fingerprint scanning in Illinois to a reversed $8 million asbestos verdict in Montana, a nearly $400 million trespass judgment settled with the Swinomish Tribe, and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reshaped where railroad workers can sue their employer.
The Illinois Fingerprint Privacy Class Action
The most prominent recent case against BNSF grew out of fingerprint scanners installed at the railroad’s four Illinois rail facilities. Truck drivers entering those yards had to register their fingerprints at an automated gate. In Rogers v. BNSF Railway Company, a class of drivers alleged the company collected that biometric data without the informed written consent required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
The case went to a five-day jury trial before Judge Matthew Kennelly in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in October 2022. The jury found BNSF liable for 45,600 reckless or intentional violations. Applying BIPA’s $5,000-per-violation maximum, the court entered a $228 million judgment, the first jury verdict ever returned in a BIPA case.
The award did not survive. In June 2023, Judge Kennelly vacated the damages figure, citing the Illinois Supreme Court’s discussion in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. that BIPA damages appear to be discretionary rather than mandatory. He ordered a new trial limited to damages. The ruling gave BIPA defendants elsewhere a new argument against automatic per-violation math.
Rather than retry damages, BNSF agreed in February 2024 to pay $75 million to resolve the class action. The settlement covered roughly 46,500 truck drivers whose fingerprints were scanned at BNSF’s Illinois facilities between April 4, 2014, and March 5, 2024. BNSF did not admit liability. Class members did not have to file claims; the administrator mailed checks to each eligible driver’s last known address. Plaintiffs’ counsel sought up to 35% of the fund, or about $26.2 million, in fees, with service awards of up to $15,000 for class representatives. The estimated per-person payout was roughly $1,000. A second round of checks went out on February 26, 2025, to class members who cashed the first payment. Judge Kennelly granted final approval on June 18, 2024.
Libby, Montana Asbestos Cases
BNSF has faced decades of claims tied to its transportation of asbestos-tainted vermiculite from mines near Libby, Montana. Vermiculite dust accumulated at the Libby rail yard over much of the twentieth century, and hundreds of asbestos-related claims remain pending in Montana’s Asbestos Claims Court.
The Wells and Walder Verdict and Its Reversal
The estates of Thomas Wells and Joyce Walder, both of whom died of mesothelioma in 2020, sued BNSF over asbestos exposure they attributed to the Libby operations. After a ten-day trial in Helena in April 2024, the jury rejected the plaintiffs’ negligence claims but found BNSF strictly liable, awarding each estate $4 million in compensatory damages.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on February 24, 2026. A unanimous panel held that BNSF was shielded by the “common carrier exception,” which protects railroads from strict liability for activities arising from their federally mandated duty to transport goods. Because BNSF was required to carry the vermiculite and the asbestos dust accumulated as a direct result of that transportation, the exception applied. Judge Callahan wrote a concurrence suggesting federal preemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act supplied an additional basis for dismissal. The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc and issued its mandate on April 22, 2026.
The McGarvey Law Firm in Kalispell, which represented the estates with the Lanier Law Firm, said it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating further options. At least one other Libby case, Moe v. BNSF, had been stayed pending the Wells appeal. Montana Asbestos Claims Court Judge Amy Eddy had previously noted that a federal appellate win for BNSF could prompt the railroad to seek dismissal of all pending state claims tied to its Libby operations.
Bad Faith Insurance Claims
The Wells and Walder families also brought a separate suit alleging BNSF violated Montana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, BNSF pursued a nationwide policy of delaying payments to asbestos victims as an investment strategy, earning interest on withheld funds while buying back its own insurance policies to avoid traditional insurer obligations. In December 2025, Chief U.S. District Judge Brian Morris denied BNSF’s motion to dismiss, ruling that by assuming insurance obligations through policy buybacks, BNSF may be subject to insurance bad faith laws. The case moved into discovery.
Worker Injury Cases Under FELA
As one of the largest employers of railroad workers, BNSF is a regular defendant under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, which lets railroad employees sue for on-the-job injuries caused by employer negligence.
Kowalewski v. BNSF
Scott Kowalewski, a BNSF employee, alleged progressive neurological injuries from exposure to toxic fumes at the Northtown Railroad Yard, including wellhead casing oil containing benzene, hydrogen sulfide, and toluene. A Hennepin County, Minnesota jury awarded him $15.3 million in March 2018. The judge separately fined BNSF $4.6 million for litigation misconduct and struck the railroad’s defenses on causation and liability. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions along with $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees and roughly $89,600 in costs.
Grimes v. BNSF
Locomotive engineer Michael Grimes sued BNSF after falling and striking his head on a stray cylindrical fuse while navigating a cramped train cab at the Whitefish, Montana facility in December 2022. He suffered a mild traumatic brain injury with lasting effects on his executive functioning. BNSF initially denied the fuse was present, citing an internal report, but a photograph taken by a conductor contradicted that account, and the company admitted liability before trial. In February 2026, a Cascade County jury awarded Grimes $2.3 million, made up of $950,000 for lost earning capacity and $1.4 million for pain and suffering. Grimes resigned after the verdict, saying he was medically unable to return to duty.
Kemper v. BNSF
In January 2026, the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled in Kemper v. BNSF Railway Company on a question that reaches across FELA cases: whether a railroad can offset a jury award by amounts a plaintiff received from other sources for the same injury. David Kemper’s estate had won a $1.5 million verdict tied to mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. BNSF sought to offset the judgment by roughly $649,500 the family had received from asbestos bankruptcy trusts and VA disability benefits. The appellate court sided with BNSF, holding that FELA does not bar such offsets and that full recovery from multiple sources for the same injury would be an impermissible double recovery. The court ordered a dollar-for-dollar reduction.
Other Recent FELA Outcomes
BNSF has won its share of these cases too. In May 2025, a Maricopa County, Arizona jury returned a defense verdict in Carter v. BNSF Railway Company, rejecting a former engineer’s claim that he suffered a serious knee injury after slipping on an oil leak. BNSF argued the fall never happened and pointed to preexisting knee problems. Other FELA verdicts against the railroad reported in recent years include an $8.1 million award for a conductor with disabling injuries, a $1.88 million award for cumulative spinal trauma, and a $1.5 million award for cervical injuries tied to track and locomotive conditions.
Employment Discrimination and Harassment Cases
Alliance, Nebraska Sexual Harassment Suit
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued BNSF on behalf of train conductor Rena Merker and other women at the railyard in Alliance, Nebraska. The complaint alleged persistent harassment by coworkers and supervisors, including unwelcome sexual advances, sexually explicit graffiti on locomotives and in locker rooms, the display of explicit images, and the distribution of company-issued T-shirts with sexualized messages. It also alleged that unsanitary locomotive restroom conditions were intentionally created to harass women, and that supervisors dismissed complaints with responses like “Welcome to the railroad” and “Just don’t look at it.”
The district court initially dismissed the broader class claims and later granted summary judgment to BNSF on Merker’s individual claim, finding the harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to be actionable under Title VII. On August 28, 2025, the Eighth Circuit reversed both rulings, holding that the lower court had applied improper heightened pleading standards and that genuine disputes remained about the severity and continuity of the alleged hostile work environment. The case returned to the district court.
Genetic Testing and Age Discrimination
In 2001, the EEOC filed the first federal lawsuit alleging genetic discrimination, challenging BNSF’s practice of secretly testing employees who filed carpal tunnel syndrome claims for a genetic marker linked to hereditary neuropathy. Company-paid doctors were also instructed to screen for conditions such as diabetes and alcoholism without workers’ knowledge, and at least one employee who refused testing was threatened with termination. BNSF settled in May 2002 for $2.2 million covering 36 workers, agreed to stop all genetic testing, and paid individual amounts ranging from $5,900 to $75,000.
In 2007, BNSF paid $800,000 to settle an EEOC age discrimination suit alleging the railroad had excluded 137 older employees from exit incentive plans because they were eligible for Railroad Retirement benefits. In 2014, the EEOC sued BNSF for disability discrimination under the ADA after the company withdrew a job offer from an applicant with a prior back injury.
Swinomish Tribe Trespass Case
The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community in Washington state sued BNSF in 2015, alleging the railroad was running far more trains across its reservation than allowed under a 1991 easement, which required tribal consent for operations exceeding one train of 25 cars per day.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled for the Tribe, finding BNSF’s actions constituted willful trespass and ordering the railroad to disgorge nearly $400 million in profits from the excess rail traffic. The court rejected BNSF’s argument that its common carrier duty overrode its contractual obligations. In March 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the underlying liability findings, holding that federal railroad law did not preempt the Indian Right of Way Act or the Treaty of Point Elliott.
On November 4, 2025, after confidential mediation overseen by the Ninth Circuit, the parties announced a settlement. BNSF may operate one unit train carrying a single commodity across the easement each day, with limited additional cars on manifest or local trains. The Tribe consented in exchange for reduced marine tanker traffic to nearby March Point, aimed at protecting Treaty fishing rights and reducing oil spill risks. The agreement also set up new rail-safety communication channels and included provisions supporting tribal investment in housing, healthcare, and education. Financial terms were confidential.
Environmental Lawsuits
In 2013, seven environmental groups sued BNSF under the Clean Water Act, alleging discharges of coal and petroleum coke into Washington state waterways without a permit. On the sixth day of a federal trial in Seattle, the parties reached a tentative settlement in 2016. BNSF agreed to pay $1 million for environmental projects, clean up coal dust hotspots near waterways, and fund a two-year study on physical covers for coal and petroleum coke railcars. BNSF denied violating the Act.
A separate effort to attack rail-yard diesel emissions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act failed. In Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. BNSF Railway Co. (2014), the Ninth Circuit held that airborne diesel emissions do not qualify as “disposal” of solid waste under RCRA, closing that avenue for citizen suits against rail-yard pollution.
More recently, San Diego Coastkeeper and the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation issued a formal notice of intent to sue BNSF in April 2024 under the Clean Water Act, alleging that freight trains had spilled plastic pellets known as “nurdles” into coastal lagoons along a rail corridor in San Diego County. A settlement was reached by February 2026, with BNSF agreeing to implement new inspection procedures for railcars carrying nurdles, stop using leaking railcars, and monitor three locations along the railway for one year.
Supreme Court Ruling on Where Workers Can Sue
BNSF’s litigation has also shaped constitutional law on personal jurisdiction. In BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, decided in May 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held 8–1 that Montana courts could not exercise general personal jurisdiction over BNSF in cases where the injuries occurred elsewhere. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority, ruling that FELA’s venue provision does not establish personal jurisdiction and that under the Due Process Clause, a corporation can generally only be sued where it is “essentially at home,” meaning its state of incorporation or principal place of business. BNSF’s Montana operations, roughly 6% of its track and under 5% of its workforce, did not clear that bar. Justice Sotomayor, in partial dissent, objected to the rigidity of the “at home” test. The decision limits where injured railroad workers can file, sometimes forcing suits in distant jurisdictions.
Page, North Dakota Crash: BNSF as Plaintiff
BNSF has also gone to court as a plaintiff. In May 2026, the railroad sued in U.S. District Court for North Dakota seeking more than $6 million in damages after a fatal crash on October 9, 2025, near Page, North Dakota. According to the complaint, Herman Van Den Berg, 33, was driving a John Deere combine southbound at a rural railroad crossing when he entered the path of a westbound BNSF freight train. The crew sounded the horn but could not stop in time. Van Den Berg was killed. The collision ignited the lead locomotive and caused three locomotives and 17 rail cars to derail, damaging roughly 1,000 feet of track.
BNSF sued Van Den Berg’s estate for negligence and named several members of the Satrom family and their associated Cass County farm businesses as defendants, alleging Van Den Berg was an employee or agent of the Satrom farm and that the defendants failed to properly hire, train, and supervise him. BNSF sought compensation for cleanup, track repair, engineering costs, and disrupted operations. As of early May 2026, the defendants had not yet responded.