In November 2010, plaintiff Neil Jensen, a conductor in his 40s, returned to work with BNSF Railway Co. after he had previously sustained an injury to his left wrist. After his wrist in 2003, Jensen filed a Federal Employers’ Liability Act claim against BNSF Railway. Upon returning to work at the railroad in November 2010, he presented a note with an alleged treatment plan from his treating physician. It stated that Jensen would need three to eight days off “for the rest of his career” (or 17 years), in addition to his regularly scheduled days off, for intermittent pain related to his . Jensen already received nine days off as a BNSF employee. Taking 14 days off per month would classify Jensen as a part-time employee, which BNSF has none, and doing so would violate BNSF’s attendance policy. After several violations, Jensen was terminated in March 2012. Jensen sued BNSF Railway Co. for wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c)(2). Plaintiff’s counsel contended that each time Jensen was given a violation of the attendance policy, or was called in to talk about the attendance policy, BNSF violated the Federal Railroad Safety Act statute. Counsel noted that the statute states that a railroad carrier or a person covered under the statute may not discipline, or threaten to discipline, an employee for requesting medical or first aid treatment, or for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician. Defense counsel denied that BNSF violated the Federal Railroad Safety Act statute. Counsel contended that Jensen already exhausted his medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act and denied that Jensen was entitled to additional absences beyond that allowed by BNSF’s attendance policy. Defense counsel also argued that the doctor’s note was not a treatment plan because Jensen was not receiving any treatment in his absence from work, but was just taking days off. Counsel added that even if Jensen took off an additional eight days, in addition to his nine days, then Jensen would still be violating the attendance policy. A company witness who supervised Jensen and had an active role in Jensen’s termination hearing testified that an employee already received nine days off and that an employee could not take 17 days off per month because that would be a violation of the Union contract and that there is no part-time employment. The witness also testified that he exercised leniency many times and would let it go when Jensen was found to be violating the attendance policy. He further testified that he went to his supervisor after Jensen’s fourth violation, which could have resulted in Jensen’s termination, and asked that Jensen be given one more chance. However, the witness claimed that despite being given an additional chance and being shown leniency, Jensen continued to violate the attendance policy and was ultimately terminated., Jensen claimed that he suffered a loss of earnings and depression as a result of his termination. He alleged that as a result, he periodically saw a psychologist for his emotional distress. Thus, Jensen sought recovery of $2.5 million in total damages, plus attorney fees and costs. Specifically, he sought recovery of front and back pay damages, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages. In addition, Jensen claimed that he wanted to return to work for the railroad. Defense counsel argued that Jensen did not see his psychologist as recommended and only saw the psychologist periodically. Counsel also argued that Jensen refused to take the prescribed antidepressant medications that were recommended to him.