American Orient Express Railway Co. v. Surface Transportation Board

Citations: 376 U.S. App. D.C. 56; 484 F.3d 554; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9121; 2007 WL 1159751Docket: No. 06-1077

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; April 20, 2007; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Circuit Judge Randolph addresses the classification of the American Orient Express Railway Company as a "rail carrier" under the Railroad Retirement Act and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. The company offers luxury vacations on vintage railcars, employing onboard staff and contracting with Amtrak for locomotive services. The Railroad Retirement Board sought to determine the company's liability for contributions under these acts, which apply to rail carriers under the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (STB). Following a request from the Orient Express, the STB issued a declaratory order affirming its jurisdiction over the company. The Retirement Board concurred and held the company liable for contributions.

The Orient Express contends it does not fall under the STB's jurisdiction as it does not own or operate railroad tracks. However, the STB and the court interpret "railroad transportation" to include operations using tracks owned by others under an agreement. The court emphasizes that the definition of a "rail carrier" encompasses those providing transportation for compensation, regardless of ownership of the tracks. Furthermore, the STB classified the Orient Express as a common carrier because it publicly offers transportation services. The court supports the STB's definitions and judgments, reinforcing the view that the Orient Express qualifies as a rail carrier, despite its claims to the contrary.

A common carrier is defined under common law as an entity that offers services to the public without discrimination, as per Black’s Law Dictionary. The Orient Express misinterprets the definition of common carriers by assuming that the descriptions of some are applicable to all. Certain common carriers are obligated to provide services without discrimination and exercise utmost care, especially monopolies offering essential services. The essence of being a common carrier lies in serving the public indiscriminately, rather than the legal obligations imposed on the company. 

The Orient Express operates as a common carrier by advertising fixed prices for its vacation packages, indicating it does not make individualized decisions about customers. While it does have specific exclusions (e.g., no children under eight and accessibility issues), it can still be considered a common carrier, as the nature of its service may appeal to a limited audience. The Surface Transportation Board appropriately asserted jurisdiction over the Orient Express, leading to the denial of the company's petition for review (No. 06-1077). 

Regarding the Railroad Retirement Board’s order (No. 06-1203), the Board affirmed the Transportation Board's jurisdiction over the Orient Express but was accused by the company of inadequate analysis. The Retirement Board, however, demonstrated it evaluated the Transportation Board's findings and confirmed that the evidence supported the jurisdiction conclusion. The company’s arguments were deemed unpersuasive. 

The case remains active despite the Orient Express selling its assets, as liability for contributions is still relevant. The fact that the Orient Express relies on Amtrak for locomotion does not affect its status as a carrier under the Interstate Commerce Act, which includes any transportation related to passenger movement. 

In a separate case (No. 06-1080), the General Committee of Adjustment 386 of the United Transportation Union argued that the Transportation Board lacked authority to issue a declaratory order. However, since the Committee did not demonstrate that the order adversely affected its members, the court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.