Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—8th Cir.: Railroad conductor who suffered stroke cannot establish disparate treatment under the ADA, (Aug 12, 2026)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

The employer successfully defended the claim by showing that returning the employee to a safety-sensitive position would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of the individual or others in the workplace.

The Eighth Circuit held that a railroad conductor’s disparate treatment claim under the ADA could not proceed in light of his employer’s successful application of the “direct threat” defense, affirming the district court’s judgment. The employee was originally placed on sudden-incapacitation restrictions for one year following a stroke, but updated scientific information about the frequency of seizures after strokes and intracerebral hemorrhages prompted the employer to update its practices and extend those restrictions for five years. The summary judgment evidence established each element of the employer’s defense, and the employee’s countervailing arguments were unpersuasive (Christensen v. United Pacific Railroad Co., No. 25-2173 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2026)).

Stroke. The employee in this case worked as a conductor for Union Pacific for more than 10 years when he suffered a stroke on January 9, 2015. He was prescribed medication to address blood clots, which caused minor bleeding in his brain. Nevertheless, he recovered well, and his treating neurologist and cardiologist both cleared him to return to work less than two months later. The employee submitted to a fitness-for-duty evaluation, and Union Pacific’s Chief Medical Officer (CMO) reviewed his medical records. The CMO decided to impose one-year, sudden-incapacitation restrictions on the employee’s work, which prevented him from operating company vehicles and machinery and from working on or near moving trains. This resulted in the employee’s inability to perform the role of a conductor.

Return to work. In December 2015, the employee began the return-to-work process by providing Union Pacific with updated medical records, which included examination notes from an additional physician. These notes indicated that the employee was generally strong and neurologically capable of driving commercially.

Five-year restrictions. A medical doctor hired by Union Pacific performed an additional fitness-for-duty evaluation and concluded that the employee had “an unacceptable risk for future seizure relating to his history of stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage.” He explained that, per guidance issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), “a commercial driver that has had either of these conditions should be prohibited from driving commercial vehicles for at least 5 years.” He further explained that FMCSA guidance stated that such person may return to commercial driving if he has had no history of interval strokes, transient ischemic attacks, or seizures, and a current thorough medical evaluation shows no risk factors for these neurological events, as well as no ongoing functional impairment. Union Pacific’s Health and Medical Services Department considered these recommendations of FMCSA to be evidence-based, and that they characterize well the risks for sudden incapacitation for work in safety-critical positions.

The doctor informed the employee that, while he had originally been placed on restrictions for one year, Union Pacific had “changed its practice due to updated scientific information about the frequency of seizures after strokes and intracerebral hemorrhage if in the cortical or subcortical regions of the brain.”

Lawsuit. Ultimately, the employee never returned to work, and in 2023 sued his employer for damages, asserting a disparate treatment claim under the ADA. The district court credited Union Pacific with establishing its “direct threat” affirmative defense and granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The employee appealed.

Direct threat defense. According to the appellate court, the summary judgment record established each element of Union Pacific’s direct threat defense. First, it showed that Union Pacific conducted an individualized assessment of the employee, which included multiple rounds of fitness-for-duty evaluations that involved comprehensive reviews of his medical records, condition, and job duties. Second, it showed that Union Pacific’s decision to restrict the employee from returning to work as a conductor was objectively reasonable, as Union Pacific relied on the opinions of multiple physicians and on an extensive medical record in reaching its decision. And third, the record showed that Union Pacific acted on the most current medical knowledge and on the best available objective evidence.

Objective reasonableness. In response, the employee argued that he had raised an issue of fact as to the objective reasonableness of Union Pacific’s direct threat determination because his personal physicians cleared him to return to work. But this misconstrued what Union Pacific was required to establish—that its determination that the employee posed a direct threat to health and safety was objectively reasonable. The court explained: “While a reasonable jury could perhaps conclude from [the employee]’s evidence that Union Pacific misjudged the safety risk he posed, there is nothing in the record that would allow a jury to conclude that Union Pacific’s judgment was so off-base as to be objectively unreasonable.”

Carrillo. Next, the employee contended that he raised a fact issue on the question of whether Union Pacific relied on the “best current medical or other objective evidence” when it imposed its restrictions. He pointed out that FMCSA withdrew its guidelines because some of the information they contained was obsolete or prescriptive in nature. The Fifth Circuit, however, has rejected virtually identical arguments about the import of the guidelines’ withdrawal, finding that evidence that “Union Pacific looked partly to guidance documents from [FMCSA] that were not peer-reviewed and were removed from the FMCSA website” was not sufficient to raise a disputed issue of fact as to whether Union Pacific relied on adequate evidence in reaching its decision. Carrillo v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20914, at *12 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2024).

The Carrillo court acknowledged that it was “undisputed on this record that the guidance documents were evidence-based and developed through a consensus of medical experts,” and observed that the plaintiff failed to identify medical literature missing from Union Pacific’s consideration, or claim that Union Pacific intentionally disregarded the best objective evidence. Here, the Eighth Circuit opined that Carrillo’s analysis was well-founded and persuasive, and reached the same conclusion on the instant facts.

The case is No. 25-2173.

Judge: Shepherd, B.

Attorneys: Lucas Kaster (Schlesinger) for Ross Christensen. Mark Joseph Goldsmith (Baird & Holm) for Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Companies: Union Pacific Railroad Co.

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews GCNNews