Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D.D.C.: Amtrak employee’s claim not precluded by Railway Labor Act, (Sep 24, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

“A reasonable jury could discredit Amtrak’s explanation and find that continuing its remote work accommodation was not an undue hardship.”

A crew management representative for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, commonly known as Amtrak, could move forward with her ADA claim after a federal court in the District of Columbia found that genuine issues of fact existed precluding summary judgment. The employee was previously granted an accommodation of working from home due to illness when exposed to environmental antigens such as perfume and fragrances. After some time, Amtrak required her to return to the office. Amtrak argued that the employee’s ADA claim was precluded by the Railroad Labor Act (RLA) under the circumstances and that no reasonable jury could find an ADA violation. The court disagreed, finding that the employee’s asserted rights stemmed from the ADA, not from a right under a collective bargaining agreement (McDade v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 23-03801 (AHA) (D.D.C. Sept. 22, 2025)).

Environmental toxins. The employee in this case has chronic inflammatory response syndrome, which means certain environmental toxins cause her to experience brain fog, muscle aches, and joint pain.

According to her doctor, the employee will become ill if exposed to environmental antigens such as perfume and fragrances and thus requires a fragrance-free workplace. Amtrak did not dispute that she suffered from this condition. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the employee's union and Amtrak agreed that union members would work remotely for the duration of the national state of emergency. Afterwards, the work-from-home agreement was extended but eventually the employee and others were required to return to office. Amtrak offered plexiglass surrounding the employee’s desk that only went half-way up, but did not create an office.

Railway Labor Act. Amtrak contended that the employee’s ADA claim was precluded by the RLA and that no reasonable jury could find in her favor. Specifically, Amtrak argued that the employee’s claim must go through the RLA’s arbitral process for minor disputes because it implicates the question whether allowing remote work as an accommodation would violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). And because Amtrak has raised this potential defense, the employee’s claim is “inextricably intertwined” with the CBA and becomes a minor dispute.

Disagreeing, the court found that the employee’s asserted rights stemmed from the ADA, not from a right she is entitled to under the CBA, and that such claims are generally not precluded by the RLA. Also, according to the court, “Amtrak attempts to invoke the CBA as a justification without even identifying any provision of the CBA that precludes remote work.” Further, the employee claimed she has a right to a reasonable accommodation notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the CBA. As a result, her claim was not precluded by the RLA, according to the court.

Reasonable accommodation. Amtrak argued that that it did not deny the employee a reasonable accommodation by refusing remote work. However, the court noted that a jury could easily conclude that the employee’s request to work remotely to accommodate her condition was reasonable on its face. The record showed that the employee had already worked remotely for an extended period. Amtrak did not suggest she was unable to perform her duties with that accommodation or that continuing the accommodation would pose an undue hardship.

ADA claim. According to Amtrak, it is entitled to judgment on the ADA claim because: (1) remote work was an unreasonable accommodation since the union had filed a grievance when Amtrak permitted some employees to work remotely; and (2) the employee failed to consider other reasonable accommodations, including installation of plexiglass or a job transfer, and insisted that remote work was the only solution. The court disagreed and noted evidence presented by the employee that the union did not have any opposition to remote work as an accommodation.

As a result, according to the court, a reasonable jury could discredit Amtrak’s explanation and find that continuing its remote work accommodation was not an undue hardship. Also, as to plexiglass as an alternative accommodation, the employee’s doctor testified this could have been an alternative if it went “all the way to the ceiling,” essentially “creating a room.” The employee pointed to evidence indicating that Amtrak did not actually propose such an accommodation. The court also noted that it was insufficient for Amtrak to argue that the employee should have found a new job if she could have continued in her position with an accommodation.

Accordingly, Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 23-03801 (AHA).

Judge: Ali, A.

Attorneys: Kathryn Averwater (Casey Jones Law Firm) for Stephanie McDade. Alison N. Davis (Littler Mendelson) for National Railroad Passenger Corp. dba Amtrak.

Companies: National Railroad Passenger Corp.; Amtrak

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Arbitration CoverageLiability Labor UnionsMembers Procedure DistrictofColumbiaNews