In the 1996 case of Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company v. Michael Buckley, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers cannot seek damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for negligent infliction of emotional distress unless they suffer a physical impact as a result of their employer's negligence or are in its immediate zone of danger. The plaintiff, Michael Buckley, was an asbestos removal worker who sued his employer, Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company for emotional distress after he learned he had been exposed to asbestos on the job and might develop cancer or other diseases in future. However, since Buckley did not have any symptoms at present nor was there evidence that he would definitely become ill in future due to exposure; it was held by court that mere fear without actual injury does not constitute grounds for compensation under FELA.

In the dissenting opinion for Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company v. Michael Buckley, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's decision to allow recovery for emotional distress in absence of physical injury was inconsistent with the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He believed that FELA should be interpreted as allowing recovery only when there is a physical impact or manifestation of emotional harm. The justice also expressed concern about potential fraudulent claims and excessive litigation resulting from this ruling. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on foreseeability of harm, arguing it shouldn’t be used to determine liability under FELA but rather whether an employer had been negligent. Overall, Justice Thomas felt that by expanding what could constitute "injury" under FELA without clear congressional intent was judicial overreach.