The U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Terminal Railroad Association in 1937 revolved around the issue of whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence on part of another employee, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff, Brady, was injured while working as a switchman when he fell from a ladder that was allegedly defective and negligently maintained by his employer, Terminal Railroad Association. He sued for damages claiming that the accident resulted from negligence on part of his co-worker who had inspected and approved the use of this ladder despite its faulty condition. The court ruled in favor of Brady stating that under FELA, employers are responsible for maintaining safe work conditions and equipment. If an injury occurs due to any negligent act or omission on their part or their employees', they can be held accountable regardless if it's directly related to their duties or not. This decision reinforced FELA's purpose which is to protect workers against personal injury sustained while employed.

In the dissenting opinion for Brady v. Terminal Railroad Association, Justice Butler argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroad companies to compensate workers for time spent traveling between job sites was an overreach of federal power. He contended that this issue should be left up to individual states and their labor laws rather than being federally mandated. Furthermore, he believed that such compensation was not necessary as travel time did not constitute work in his view. This interpretation of what constitutes "work" is at odds with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which generally requires employers to pay employees for all hours they are required to be on duty or on the employer’s premises or at any other prescribed place of work. Therefore, according to Justice Butler, if an employee voluntarily chooses a far-off workplace knowing well about its location and distance from his residence then it would be unjustified for him/her demanding payment from their employer just because they had traveled long distances before starting actual work.