Todd DeGeer sued Union Pacific Railroad Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed DeGeer’s claims as untimely, and DeGeer appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
Todd DeGeer worked for Union Pacific Railroad Company as a conductor, a safety-sensitive position, despite having a longstanding color vision deficiency. Union Pacific’s fitness-for-duty program required employees to pass color vision tests mandated by the Federal Railroad Agency. DeGeer typically failed the initial Ishihara test but passed a secondary test. However, after Union Pacific updated its program with a new secondary test, DeGeer failed both tests in June 2017. As a result, Union Pacific removed him from service, imposed permanent work restrictions, and barred him from working in jobs requiring traffic signal identification.
Prior to DeGeer’s removal, former Union Pacific employees filed a class action lawsuit (Harris v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.) alleging that the company’s fitness-for-duty policies violated the ADA. DeGeer believed he was a member of this class. After the Eighth Circuit decertified the Harris class, DeGeer filed an EEOC charge and an individual lawsuit, thinking his claims were tolled under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah. The district court, however, found that DeGeer was not a member of the Harris class as narrowly defined in the certification order and dismissed his individual claims as untimely.
Legal Analysis
American Pipe Tolling: The court first addressed the issue of American Pipe tolling, which suspends the statute of limitations for all asserted class members who would have been parties had the class action been permitted to continue. The court noted that while American Pipe tolling ended for the entire Harris class when the Eighth Circuit reversed certification, the question remained whether it ended for DeGeer sooner when the district court certified the class under a narrower definition.
Unambiguous Exclusion Standard: The Eighth Circuit adopted the approach taken by the Ninth and Fifth Circuits, holding that American Pipe tolling continues unless a court accepts a new class definition that unambiguously excludes the plaintiff. The court emphasized that any ambiguities should be resolved in favor of applying American Pipe tolling.
Application to DeGeer’s Case: The court found that the narrowed class definition in Harris did not unambiguously exclude DeGeer. The court noted that there was genuine ambiguity in whether DeGeer’s failed color vision test could be considered a “reportable health event” triggering a fitness-for-duty evaluation under the narrowed class definition.
Purposes of American Pipe Tolling: The court emphasized that its ruling aligned with the efficiency and reliance purposes of American Pipe tolling. It reasoned that requiring plaintiffs like DeGeer to closely monitor class actions for any changes in class definitions would frustrate these purposes.
Notice to Defendant: The court found that Union Pacific had notice of DeGeer and his claims, as evidenced by the company’s arguments during the class certification process in Harris.
The Eighth Circuit concluded that because the Harris class did not unambiguously exclude DeGeer when the district court certified it under a narrowed definition, he was entitled to American Pipe tolling. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Schrag on Law 