Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—8th Cir.: Rail employee with traumatic brain injury revives regarded-as claim, (Jul 28, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Union Pacific decided that his traumatic brain injury presented an unacceptable risk of future seizures.

Union Pacific Railroad Co. was not entitled to summary judgment against the ADA claim of an employee with a traumatic brain injury on whom it placed work restrictions for five years. The carrier argued that it interpreted its medical examiner’s report on the employee’s condition as merely a warning that seizures may impair the employee later, but one part of the examiner’s report discussed a chemical “alter[ation]” and “injury” to the employee’s brain that would result in an “ongoing[,] unacceptably increased risk for seizures and other neurologic events,” and there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether the chemical alteration the examiner identified was itself an impairment (Meza v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 24-1367 (8th Cir. July 25, 2025)).

Motorcycle accident. The employee had worked for the carrier for more than 20 years when he had a serious non-job-related motorcycle accident that required him to spend several days in the hospital recovering from a brain hemorrhage.

Opinion of treating physicians. His treating physicians thought the brain injury would not have lasting effects, and one, a radiologist, determined from an MRI that “no specific or acute intracranial abnormality” existed and only “a small amount of fluid in the left mastoid air cells” remained. His neurologist then cleared him to return to his regular work and life activities. In the neurologist’s view, the employee had made a “full recovery,” at least with respect to his “dizziness, vertigo, and skull fracture.”

Union Pacific’s opinion. The carrier, however, was not as sure the employee was ready to return. Its own medical examiner feared that his brain injury could cause unpredictable seizures—a conclusion consistent with medical guidelines from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Medical examiner’s recommendation. Presumably concerned about the danger of an on-the-job seizure with heavy machinery around, Union Pacific’s medical examiner recommended restricting the employee’s work activities for five years, and the restrictions ruled out a return to his old position, which left him searching for another job in the meantime.

Lawsuit. The employee sued, alleging that Union Pacific suspended him because it “regarded [him] as having [a]... physical or mental impairment” under the ADA. Given the length of the suspension, he believed that the carrier treated him differently because of a perceived disability, rather than out of any risk to himself or others. Though he eventually returned to Union Pacific, he requested back pay for the five years he missed.

Summary judgment below. His claim did not survive summary judgment below. The district court concluded that Union Pacific had not “regarded” him as currently disabled. Rather, the district court found, it had placed restrictions on him based on concern about how the injury would affect him in the future.

He appealed to the Eighth Circuit.

Regarded-as disabled. Vacating and remanding, the appeals court observed that whether the employee’s brain was truly impaired made no difference in the case. What was important instead was that, based on the medical examiner’s report, Union Pacific may have thought it was and acted on its belief by imposing the work restrictions.

Union Pacific argued that it interpreted the medical examiner’s report as merely a warning that seizures may impair him later, but one part of the examiner’s report discussed a chemical “alter[ation]” and “injury” to the employee’s brain that would result in an “ongoing[,] unacceptably increased risk for seizures and other neurologic events.” There was thus, according to the Eighth Circuit, a genuine issue of material fact about whether the chemical alteration the examiner identified was itself an impairment, even if it would only be clear to others if the employee began having seizures.

Accordingly, the appeals court found that the perceived brain changes the medical examiner identified could qualify as an existing physical impairment, and that the carrier could have regarded the employee as disabled under the ADA.

The case is No. 24-1367.

Judge: Stras, D.

Attorneys: Laura Baures (Nichols Kaster) for David Meza. Allison Balus (Baird Holm) for Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Companies: Union Pacific Railroad Co.

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