Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—8th Cir.: Employee with heart condition was not ‘disabled’ under ADA, (Feb 13, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The employee failed to offer sufficient evidence that the extent of the limitation was “substantial.”

Disability discrimination and retaliation claims brought by an employee with a heart condition failed to survive summary judgment. The employee had requested to perform other work after his commercial driver’s license was put on hold. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit determined that the employee was not disabled under the ADA because his heart condition did not limit a major life activity. The employee, who made a request for general safety equipment available to all employees, also did not engage in protected activity to support a retaliation claim. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the holding of a district court granting summary judgment to the employer (Stephens v. United States Environmental Services LLC, No. 24-3409 (8th Cir. Feb. 12, 2026)).

CDL. The employee worked as an “operator” for his employer, United States Environmental Services, LLC (USES), which required him to maintain an active Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). During a Saturday morning shift, the employee reported to a worksite to clean out two underground tanks. When he arrived, only the worksite supervisor was present. After waiting for a technician and two safety workers to arrive, the supervisor became impatient and asked the employee to start cleaning out the first tank. The employee declined because he was a truck operator and not a technician.

Safety concerns, disclosure of heart condition. The employee also raised numerous safety concerns, such as the lack of safety workers and safety equipment, including hazmat suits, harnesses, air monitors, and respirators. Eventually, the safety workers arrived. They encouraged the employee to clean out the tank. The employee declined, continuing to express his concern over the lack of safety equipment. He then disclosed to his supervisor that he had a heart condition he did not want to aggravate.

Medical exam and hold on CDL. In response, USES required the employee to receive a medical examination, which resulted in a 45-day hold on his CDL. During the examination, the nurse determined that the employee’s electrocardiogram (EKG) was abnormal and placed a 45-day medical hold on his CDL. However, the nurse found that the employee was medically and physically fit to perform all other work. Subsequently, the employee’s cardiologist reviewed the same EKG and determined it was normal for the employee. In response, the nurse requested that a stress test be performed on the employee before lifting the hold. The employee returned to work the day after completing his medical examination. USES, however, did not let him work due to the hold on his CDL. The employee requested to perform other, non-driving work based on the nurse’s clearance, but USES denied his request and recommended he seek short-term disability. Two weeks later, he submitted to a stress test. The cardiologist determined the stress test was unremarkable and cleared the employee to be a commercial driver. The employee, however, resigned at the end of the 45-day hold because he did not feel comfortable working at USES after they denied his request to perform other work during the 45-day hold.

Lawsuit. The employee then sued USES, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA) and for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A federal district court in Arkansas dismissed the employee’s FLSA claim and granted USES summary judgment on the discrimination claim. The district court found that the employee was not disabled because his heart condition did not limit a major life activity and USES did not perceive the employee to have a disability. The district court also determined that the employee did not engage in protected activity to support a retaliation claim. The current appeal ensued.

Disability discrimination. Under the ADA, a person is entitled to protection if he is “disabled.” To show he was disabled, the employee needed to demonstrate “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.”

The employee asserted that his atrial fibrillation substantially limited the major life activities of breathing as well as respiratory, circulatory, and cardiovascular function. Specifically, he argued that atrial fibrillation can cause dyspnea, i.e., shortness of breath, and syncope episodes, i.e., loss of consciousness caused by inadequate blood flow. But the appellate court said that the employee could not rely on “generic” evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment. Instead, he was required to present evidence showing the degree to which he personally was limited by his condition. The employee failed to do so.

The employee’s atrial fibrillation did not substantially limit his major life activities, the Eighth Circuit determined. Although the cardiologist noted that atrial fibrillation could cause dyspnea or syncope episodes, he testified that the employee experienced neither condition around the time of the incident. The nurse similarly testified that the employee did not have any problems breathing or have any syncope episodes. The nurse also found the employee was medically and physically fit to perform work that did not require a CDL. While the nurse placed a hold on the employee’s CDL because she believed the EKG showed an inferior ischemia, i.e., a lack of oxygen to the heart, the doctor clarified that the employee’s EKG was normal for him and was not significant. The doctor also found the results of his stress test were “unremarkable,” and he explained that the employee was “doing very well.” Because the employee did not show he was disabled under the ADA, summary judgment was appropriate on his disability discrimination claim, the Eighth Circuit held.

ADA retaliation. For an ADA retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that he engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and there was a causal connection between the two. Requesting an accommodation is protected activity, and, therefore, an individual who is adjudged not to be a “qualified individual with a disability” may still pursue a retaliation claim under the ADA, as long as he had a good faith belief that the requested accommodation was appropriate.

The employee argued that his refusal to clean the underground tank without a respirator was a request for a reasonable accommodation, but the record showed it was actually a request for general safety equipment available to all employees. The employee initially requested a respirator when he was raising general safety concerns, including the lack of hazmat suits, harnesses, and safety workers. Only after the safety workers arrived and encouraged the employee to clean the tank without the proper safety gear did the employee mention his heart condition. Even then, he did not say his heart condition required him to use a respirator. The employee said that he requested the respirator because technicians “were supposed to have respirators,” and because he had previously seen technicians using them. As the employee pointed out, OSHA regulations require certain employers to provide respirators to all employees, not just disabled ones. Because the employee failed to show he engaged in protected activity, the district court did not err in granting USES summary judgment on the employee’s retaliation claim, the Eighth Circuit held.

Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgement of the district court.

The case is No. 24-3409.

Judge: Erickson, R.

Attorneys: Sheila Flo Campbell (Law Offices of Sheila Campbell) for Donald Stephens. April Cotton (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani) for United States Environmental Services LLC.

Companies: United States Environmental Services LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews