The U.S. Supreme Court case Accardi v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 1965, revolved around a dispute over the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiffs were employees of the defendant railroad company who had been injured on the job and sought compensation under FELA. However, they faced challenges in their claims due to an agreement between their union and the railroad that provided for arbitration of injury disputes rather than litigation. The key issue was whether this agreement could supersede or limit rights granted by FELA. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that while collective bargaining agreements are generally favored as a means to resolve disputes, such agreements cannot override statutory rights conferred by Congress through legislation like FELA. Therefore, despite any existing arbitration agreement with their employer, workers still retained their right to sue for damages under federal law if they suffered injuries at work due to negligence.

In the dissenting opinion for ACCARDI et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO., Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 1 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He argued that this section does not create a federal common law rule, but rather provides a right to recover damages under state law if an employee is injured due to his employer's negligence. According to him, FELA was intended as remedial legislation and should be interpreted liberally in favor of injured workers. However, he believed that it did not intend to displace state laws regarding contributory negligence or assumption of risk unless they were incompatible with its provisions or objectives. Therefore, he concluded that Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence statute could apply in this case without conflicting with FELA because it would still allow recovery by an injured worker even if his own carelessness contributed partially to his injury.