Dive Brief:

  • The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Union Pacific Railroad Co. did not breach the Americans with Disabilities Act when it barred a conductor from driving a train after his stroke recovery, because the role was "safety sensitive" and the company reasonably concluded his return would constitute a "direct threat" to safety.
  • According to the decision in Christensen v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., the conductor experienced an ischemic stroke at home while off duty. Post-stroke medication led to minor brain bleeding, but he recovered well and was cleared by his neurologist to resume work. However, Union Pacific's chief medical officer, reviewing his medical records, imposed a one-year restriction on train-driving duties.
  • Near the end of that year, a Union Pacific physician re-evaluated the conductor's records—noting no neurological events since the stroke—alongside updated scientific evidence and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines, and extended the restriction to five years. The conductor never returned to work and subsequently sued Union Pacific for ADA violations.

Dive Insight:

The 8th Circuit upheld summary judgment for Union Pacific, agreeing with the district court that the company "conclusively established" that the conductor's stroke and brain hemorrhage "resulted in a heightened risk of seizures and his return would present a direct threat to safety."

Attorneys for the conductor did not respond to a request for comment.

Under the ADA, an employer may defend a disability-based restriction by demonstrating that the disability posed a direct threat—defined as "significant risk to the health and safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation," the 8th Circuit noted.

The court held that Union Pacific satisfied this burden: it conducted an individualized assessment, including multiple fitness-for-duty evaluations that comprehensively reviewed the conductor's medical history, condition, and job responsibilities. Based on that assessment, the most current medical knowledge, and FMCSA guidelines, the railway made an "objectively reasonable" decision to restrict the conductor from returning to his position.

While a reasonable jury could have found that Union Pacific misjudged the risk—given the treating physician's clearance—the record contained no basis for a jury to conclude the railway's "judgment was so off-base as to be objectively unreasonable," the 8th Circuit said.

In a 2022 ruling, the 3rd Circuit similarly found that Norfolk Southern Railway Co. properly weighed the direct threat factors in ADA regulations before determining that a locomotive engineer posed a direct threat due to a heart condition risking loss of consciousness.

In the present case, the 8th Circuit said Union Pacific correctly determined that although the conductor's "increased risk for seizure might have been relatively low, the nature and severity of the potential harm if a seizure occurred on the job 'was extreme,' and the threat of a seizure is 'imminent' by nature."