Plaintiff Allan Sanders sued defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, raising claims of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A jury returned a verdict for Sanders on both claims, and the district court denied Union Pacific’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Union Pacific appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Allan Sanders worked for Union Pacific as a foreman general, overseeing mechanics and occasionally performing physically demanding tasks like replacing 86-pound train car knuckles. After suffering complications from a bleeding ulcer, including a brief cardiac arrest, Sanders was required to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation before returning to work.
As part of this evaluation, Sanders was asked to perform a “Bruce protocol” treadmill test to demonstrate his aerobic capacity. Sanders stopped the test early due to fatigue, which he attributed to knee pain from osteoarthritis rather than heart issues. He requested to take an alternative test on a bicycle, but Union Pacific refused.
Based on the treadmill test results, Dr. Charbonneau, Union Pacific’s associate medical director, concluded that Sanders had low aerobic capacity and imposed work restrictions preventing him from returning to his foreman general position. Sanders then sued Union Pacific for disability discrimination under the ADA, alleging disparate treatment and failure to provide reasonable accommodation.
A jury found in favor of Sanders on both claims and awarded him $1,023,424.34 in damages. Union Pacific filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court denied. Union Pacific then appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Legal Analysis
Waiver of Arguments: The court first addressed Union Pacific’s argument that Sanders waived any claims related to cardiovascular concerns or knee problems because his complaint only mentioned his ulcer. The court rejected this argument, finding that Union Pacific had impliedly consented to the amendment of the pleadings by litigating these issues before and during trial without objection.
Disparate Treatment Claim
Disability: The court found sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Union Pacific regarded Sanders as disabled. The court noted that under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, the definition of “regarded as” having an impairment had been expanded, and Union Pacific’s reliance on Dr. Charbonneau’s evaluation did not insulate it from liability.
Qualified Individual: The court determined that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Sanders qualified for his position. This evidence included medical clearance from his doctors, the job description indicating that lifting heavy knuckles was a rare occurrence, and Sanders’ testimony about his ability to perform strenuous activities.
Discrimination Based on Disability: The court found that Union Pacific’s admission that it restricted Sanders from work due to perceived cardiovascular issues was sufficient to establish this element.
Direct Threat Defense: The court upheld the jury’s rejection of Union Pacific’s direct threat defense, finding sufficient evidence that the company’s determination was not objectively reasonable or based on the best available evidence.
Failure to Accommodate Claim: The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict on the failure to accommodate claim. It determined that Sanders had presented evidence of his disability (knee arthritis), Union Pacific’s knowledge of this disability, Sanders’ request for accommodation (bicycle test), and Union Pacific’s failure to engage in an interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Union Pacific’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on both the disparate treatment and failure to accommodate claims.
Schrag on Law 