at 153, 108 S.Ct. at 2314; see also Johnson, 520 U.S. at 920, 117 S.Ct. at 1806. Because FELA, like § 1983, requires “uniform application throughout the country” in order to “effectuate its purposes,” Dice, 342 U.S. at 361, 72 S.Ct. at 314, we must determine whether the outcome of a FELA claim in a Minnesota state court under rule 68.03 is sufficiently different from the ou holding that the state notice-of-claim statute allowed state courts to decline consideration of § 1983 claims and therefore “predictably alter[ed] the outcome of § 1983 claims”); Dice, 342 U.S. at 362, 72 S.Ct. at 314-15 (concluding that state law regarding fraud defense that was “so harsh” as to “defeat a railroad employee’s claim” could not be applied in FELA case); Brown, 338 U.S. at 295-96, 70 S.Ct. at 106-107 (<HOLDING>); Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239,
holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding osha violations may be used as evidence of negligence per se under fela holding that no right to a jury trial existed after one of the plaintiffs claims was dismissed leaving only an equitable claim holding that state pleading rule under which plaintiffs claim was dismissed denied a right of trial granted him by congress and could not be used to defeat the federal right under fela