Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—W.D. Pa.: Locomotive shop electrician with seizure disorder gets trial on disability discrimination claims, (Mar 17, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

His neurologist sent the carrier a letter in January 2018 stating that he was on a stable dosage of seizure control medication and could return to work.

Norfolk Southern Railway was not entitled to summary judgment against the disability discrimination claims of a locomotive shop electrician with a seizure disorder who alleged that the rail carrier unreasonably delayed his return to work, ruled a federal district court in Pennsylvania. Given factual uncertainties concerning when the electrician attained “stability” and Norfolk’s policy on return to work for an electrician with the specific duties assigned to him, genuine issues of material fact remained (Snyder v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 3:23-cv-59 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2025)).

Electrician for nearly 20 years. The employee, according to the court, had been employed for nearly 20 years by Norfolk Southern at the beginning of the case. He worked at the railroad’s locomotive shop in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and in his role as an electrician, his duties could include electrical diagnostic, rebuild, and repair.

Safety-sensitive position. Electricians at Norfolk Southern work on high voltage locomotive engines and must climb in, on, and off 10-15-foot-high locomotives, sometimes outside the shop in inclement weather. They must also be able to operate and move the engines into bays. The railroad considers the position a safety-sensitive one.

First seizure. The electrician first suffered a seizure in November 2005, and at the time, he began taking seizure control medication. He did not, however, disclose his seizure disorder to the employer until March 2016.

Hospitalized. From March 16 through March 25, 2016, he was hospitalized, and ultimately sedated and intubated following a series of seizures. He notified the employer that he would need to take a leave of absence at the time, and Norfolk Southern Health Services (NSHS) sent him a letter confirming his leave and notifying him of the physician’s medical statement—addressing his risk of experiencing a recurrent seizure—before he could return to work.

Brain surgery. Later, after an MRI confirmed that he had at least five “cavernous malformations,” the electrician underwent brain surgery in January 2017, and his post-operative notes, which stated that he had been seizure-free since the surgery, indicated that he “may return to work without restriction 2 months from his surgery date.”

Return-to-work letter from neurologist. Following an extensive back-and-forth with NSHS, his neurologist sent NSHS a letter on January 9, 2018 indicating that his last seizure was in March 2016, that he was on a stable dosage of seizure control medication, and that, in the neurologist’s opinion, he could return to work. He ultimately did February 1, 2018, more than a year after his surgery.

Lawsuit. The electrician sued Norfolk Southern, alleging that the railraod discriminated against him in violation of the ADA when it did not return him to work. Norfolk Southern moved for summary judgment.

ADA disability discrimination. Declining the employer’s motion, and applying a direct threat analysis under the ADA, the court found “a multitude of genuine issues of material fact that are crucial for a determination of whether Norfolk acted in violation of the ADA” when postponing his return to work. The facts indicated that he did not have a seizure since March 2016, before his January 2017 operation. But there was a question of fact about when he was medically determined to be seizure-free. Though the facts indicated that his medication regimen was stabilized in or around March 29, 2017, there was also a question of fact about when he was medically determined to be stable.

There were, moreover, questions of fact about whether the electrician’s doctors were fully informed about Norfolk’s policies when recommending his return to work. The employer’s correspondence was “muddled in its requirements.” It was necessary to know both Norfolk’s written policy concerning an electrician with a seizure disorder and whether its policy is “applied evenly to all electricians even though their duties vary.”

Given the factual uncertainties about when the electrician attained “stability” and what Norfolk’s policy on return to work for an electrician with his specific duties was, genuine issues of material fact remained for a fact-finder’s determination, and Norfolk’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 3:23-cv-59.

Judge: Haines, S.

Attorneys: Kathryn Averwater (Casey Jones Law Firm) for Christopher Snyder. Kathleen J. Goldman (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney) for Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Companies: Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination PennsylvaniaNews