In the 1989 case Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Nancy J. Schwalb and William McGlone, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, stating that injuries sustained by employees while performing tasks related to their employment are covered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The two plaintiffs were injured during a fire drill at work: Schwalb was hurt when he slipped on ice while exiting his workplace as part of a safety drill, and McGlone suffered burns from an exploding flare used during another safety exercise. Both argued that these activities were not central to their jobs; hence they should not be considered "on duty" at those times for purposes of FELA coverage. The court disagreed with this argument, ruling unanimously that any task performed by an employee which is even tangentially related to their job falls within FELA's purview if it contributes “in any way” towards operation of railroad equipment or vehicles involved in interstate commerce – including participation in safety drills designed to protect workers from harm associated with such operations.

In the dissenting opinion for Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Nancy J. Schwalb and William McGlone, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) was too narrow. He believed that FELA should cover employees who are injured while performing tasks essential to their employer's business, even if those tasks do not directly involve interstate commerce or transportation. In this case, he felt that maintaining equipment used in railway operations - which was what Schwalb was doing when he got injured - is an integral part of a railroad company’s business and thus should be covered by FELA. The justice also criticized the majority for relying on outdated cases to support its decision instead of considering more recent precedents.