Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—8th Cir.: Union Pacific electrician is unable to revive disability discrimination claims on appeal, (Aug 5, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

Even if the jury instruction on direct threat did not fully reflect the law as prescribed by the governing regulation and legal precedent, it did not affect the outcome of the trial.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court decision in favor of Union Pacific, which had refused to allow an electrician federal inspector to resume his job duties upon his failing a fitness for duty exam. At trial, the jury found that the employer had discriminated against the employee based on a perceived disability. It nevertheless ruled in favor of the employer based on its conclusion that the results of the employer’s fitness for duty exam revealed that the employee’s physical condition posed a direct threat to himself. Although one of the two challenged jury instructions did not fully reflect the law as prescribed by the governing regulation and Eighth Circuit precedent, the omission it made did not affect the outcome of the trial, the appeals court concluded (Baldwin v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 24-3135 (8th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025)).

Baldwin was an electrician federal inspector for his employer, Union Pacific. Beginning in June 2016, the employer questioned whether the electrician’s observed limping indicated a serious medical condition. Because of this, the electrician was required to take two fitness for duty tests. The employer interpreted the test results as indicating that the electrician should have light duty restrictions that would prevent him from returning to his duties as an electrician federal inspector. Several doctors examined the electrician, with different diagnoses and conclusions as to whether the electrician suffered from cardiac issues. Regardless of the doctors’ conclusions, the employer decided that the electrician’s light duty restrictions would continue. These restrictions were not compatible with electrician’s duties as an electrician federal inspector.

In March 2022, the electrician sued the employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging disparate treatment, disparate impact, and failure to accommodate. At trial, a jury found for the electrician on his ADA claims but concluded that he posed a direct threat to himself. The electrician thereafter moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury instructions misallocated the burden of proof, omitted critical elements of the direct threat defense, and misstated the law in the business judgment instruction. The district court denied the motion.

On appeal, the appellate court stated that it would overturn the district court’s jury instructions only if it found that the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court separately analyzed the district court’s direct threat instruction and the business judgment instructions.

Direct threat instruction. The appeals court explained that a direct threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the person or other persons that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. The electrician argued that the district court jury instruction was deficient for two reasons: (1) it shifted the burden onto him to disprove he presented a significant risk of harm and (2) it omitted essential elements of the direct threat standard.

Burden shifting. The electrician argued that the district court’s direct threat instruction improperly shifted the burden of proof by employing the phrase “if it has been proved” to describe Union Pacific’s affirmative defense. The electrician asserts that this phrasing may have led the jury to conclude he bore the burden of disproving that he posed a direct threat, contrary to the established framework under which the employer must prove the defense.

The appellate court rejected the electrician’s burden shifting argument for two reasons: first, the jury verdict form referred to “Union Pacific’s defense of direct threat” and second, that the electrician’s counsel told the jury that Union Pacific bore the burden of proof on this issue.

Missing elements. The electrician argued the jury instructions omitted elements required under the ADA regulation. Specifically, the regulation requires consideration whether a threat can be reduced through accommodation and mandates that any threat determination must be grounded in objective medical judgment.

The court agreed that the district court jury instruction did not fully reflect the law as prescribed by the governing regulation and legal precedent. However, it concluded that although the direct threat instruction was erroneous, it did not affect the outcome of the trial. The appellate court noted that the parties successfully presented conflicting expert opinions on whether the electrician’s condition posed a safety threat, creating a question for the jury to resolve. Considering all the evidence, the jury found for the employer.

Business judgment instruction. The Eighth Circuit’s pattern instruction on business judgment used in this case states that “You may not return a verdict for the plaintiff just because you might disagree with the defendant’s decision or believe it to be harsh or unreasonable.” The electrician argued that this business judgment instruction was in error because it implied that the employer could prevail even if its decision was unreasonable.

The appeals court disagreed with the electrician’s contention, stating that this instruction merely cautioned the jury against using its own view of what constituted a valid employment decision. The court concluded that viewed in the context of the jury instructions as a whole, the business judgment instruction did not misstate the law or mislead the jury. That the jury returned a split verdict on the ADA discrimination claim and on the question of the electrician’s fitness for duty showed that it understood and applied the different standards at issue. Thus, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision.

The case is No. 24-3135.

Attorneys: Richard J. Gilloon (Erickson & Sederstrom) for John C. Baldwin. Allison Balus (Baird Holm) for Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Companies: Union Pacific Railroad Co.

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