Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—8th Cir.: Former Union Pacific employee, placed on permanent work restrictions, revives claims, (Jun 13, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

After submitting additional information, a second letter confirming the work restrictions qualified as an adverse action under Muldrow, thus no longer rendering his claims as time-barred.

Reversing a district court’s post-judgment denial of reconsideration and leave to amend, the Eighth Circuit determined that a former Union Pacific employee’s disability discrimination claims were not time-barred, noting that post-Muldrow, an employee is only required to plead some harm to a term or condition of employment. In this instance, a second letter sent to the employee—10 months after an initial letter placed him on work restrictions—which confirmed he was being placed on permanent work restrictions with no opportunity for review, qualified as an adverse employment action under Muldrow. As such, his claim was not time-barred (Palmer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 24-1212 (8th Cir. Jun. 12, 2025)).

Eye condition. The employee began working for Union Pacific in March 1998. At the time, he disclosed that he had diabetes. Over time, he developed an eye condition called diabetic retinopathy, which caused him to have blurred vision. Around September 2011, he underwent surgery on his right eye and continued to work for Union Pacific.

When the employee’s left eye developed blurred vision in November 2013, Union Pacific initiated a fitness-for-duty evaluation, removing him from work in the meantime. Based on this evaluation, Union Pacific’s chief medical officer sent the employee a letter in February 2014 imposing permanent work restrictions, effectively disqualifying the employee from his position.

Additional information. In May 2014, the employee submitted medical information from his eye doctor who stated that his vison was “good.” The chief medical officer responded by sending another letter in December 2014 confirming that the employee was on permanent medical restrictions and that Union Pacific would not consider any additional information concerning the prognosis or stability of his eye condition.

Class action. In February 2016, a putative class of former Union Pacific employees filed a discrimination suit against the employer, alleging it used its fitness-for-duty policy inappropriately, routinely disqualifying employees from service based on their disabilities without individualized review.

The class was eventually decertified in March 2020, and the employee subsequently filed an individual charge of discrimination with the EEOC in April 2020.

Lawsuit. After receiving his right to sue letter, the employee filed this action, raising two claims against Union Pacific under the ADA. He alleged that his suit was timely because he was a member of the putative class, and thus his claims were tolled during the pendency of the class action. Union Pacific moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims fell outside the class definition because the employee did not experience an adverse employment action after September 2014.

Granting Union Pacific’s motion with prejudice, the district court determined that the only adverse employment action the employee alleged occurred in February 2014, and that the December 2014 letter was not a separate adverse action, but rather a “mere consequence” of the February action. The employee filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal, or alternatively for leave to amend, and submitted a proposed amended complaint for the court’s review.

Proposed amended complaint. In the proposed amended complaint, the employee supplemented the allegations in support of his claims, asserting that the chief medical officer, in the February 2014 letter, imposed work restrictions but said “[i]f updated medical information is received, [Union Pacific] will be glad to have the information reviewed and obtain another fitness-for-duty decision.”

Based on Union Pacific’s invitation, the employee alleged that he submitted a report from his eye doctor, initiating another fitness-for-duty review as promised by the February 2014 letter. The December 2014 letter, which described the results of the second fitness-for-duty review, stated that the work restrictions were to be permanent. Unlike the February 2014 letter, it explicitly foreclosed the consideration of any further information provided by the employee’s doctors.

The district court denied the employee’s motion to reconsider and for leave to amend, concluding that any amendment would be futile, reiterating its conclusion that the only adverse action plausibly alleged occurred in February 2014. This appeal followed.

Muldrow. In denying the employee’s post-judgment motion, the district court relied on an Eighth Circuit standard that has since be abrogated by Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. Post-Muldrow, explained the court, to plead an adverse employment action a plaintiff need only plead some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.

Independently discriminatory. In his proposed amended complaint, the employee alleged that the February 2014 letter imposed work restrictions, but that it also expressly invited him to submit additional medical information which would prompt a new fitness-for-duty evaluation. After submitting additional medical information, he received a response in December 2014 confirming the work restrictions. Unlike the February 2014 letter, this letter expressly stated there would be no opportunity for future review.

The employee alleged that the December 2014 letter was independently discriminatory. It not only reimposed his work restrictions after a second fitness-for-duty evaluation, it also expressly stated there would be no opportunity for future review. “Under the standard articulated in Muldrow, this qualifies as an adverse employment action,” said the court.

Speculative? In response, Union Pacific argued that, even post-Muldrow, any opportunity the February 2014 letter provided for future review was “completely speculative.” As such, it asserted that the December 2014 letter was nothing more than a confirmation of the previously imposed work restrictions. However, the employee plausibly alleged that the December letter was more than a mere consequence of the February letter, explained the court. Accordingly, the district court’s post-judgment denial of reconsideration and leave to amend was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

The case is No. 24-1212.

Judge: Kelly, J.

Attorneys: Charles Austin Delbridge (Casey & Jones) for Robert L. Palmer. Allison Balus (Baird Holm) for Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Companies: Union Pacific Railroad Co.

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