Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Ind.: CSX applicant’s job offer rescinded due to untimely drug screen results, not age or disability bias, (Mar 19, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The railroad argued that the applicant did not pass the drug screening and therefore was not qualified.

A 60-year-old applicant for a freight conductor position with CSX failed to show that the railroad discriminated against him based on age or a perceived disability when it revoked his contingent job offer after determining that he was “medically unqualified” because it did not timely receive, from the testing company, the results of his drug screen. Granting summary judgment against his ADEA and ADA claims, a federal court in Indiana noted that CSX hired eight individuals in his protected class during the relevant time period and he failed to present any evidence of pretext (Lymon v. CSX Railroad Transportation, No. 1:23-CV-346-GSL (N.D. Ind. Mar. 13, 2025)).

After CSX offered the applicant a job in August 2022 contingent on passing a background check and medical exam that included a urine test, he went to a collection facility where he submitted a urine sample and underwent a medical examination. As part of the exam, he filled out a Post-Offer Medical Report Form in which he indicated, in the section on mood disorders, that he did not suffer from PTSD.

Medically unqualified. The collection facility forwarded the exam results and the form to CSX and sent the urine sample to LabCorp for testing. The sample was processed in September 2022 but the results were not initially forwarded to the medical review officer (MRO). When it did not timely receive the results, CSX notified the applicant in November 2022 that he was “medically unqualified” and rescinded the job offer.

The MRO informed CSX in April 2023 that it had received and reviewed LabCorp’s results, which indicated that the applicant had passed. CSX then offered the applicant the job but he declined and subsequently sued.

Age discrimination. Although CSX argued that the applicant was not qualified for the position because he did not pass the drug screening, the court disagreed. LabCorp processed his urine sample in September and its failure to timely report the result to the MRO, so that it reached CSX in a timely manner, did not change the fact that the test result was negative.

There was no evidence, however, that CSX offered the job to a similarly situated person under 40. Nor did the applicant rebut the railroad’s evidence that during the 2022-23 time period, it hired eight individuals in the applicant’s protected class. Thus, said the court, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of age-based discrimination.

Even had he established a prima facie case, the applicant failed to show CSX’s stated reason for rescinding the job offer—it never received the drug screen results—was pretextual. Specifically, there was evidence the MRO did not receive the LabCorp results until April 2023. While the applicant argued that his age and disability were not known until after his medical examination, his resume indicated that he had been a law enforcement officer for at least 25 years, ending in 2012. Thus, said the court, a reasonable jury could not find that CSX did not know until the medical exam that the applicant was over 40.

Further, said the court, when CSX learned of the mistake, it offered the applicant the job. Nor was there any evidence CSX knew about the drug screen results before April 2023. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to CSX on this claim.

Disability discrimination. In support of his ADA claim, the applicant argued that he was fired based on his perceived disability of PTSD. But there was no evidence the railroad knew about his PTSD before rescinding his job offer. Indeed, the court observed, he indicated on his Post-Offer Medical Report Form that he did not suffer from PTSD and he signed the report certifying that the information was “truthful and complete.” Thus, CSX was entitled to summary judgment on this claim as well.

The case is No. 1:23-CV-346-GSL.

Judge: Lund, G.

Attorneys: Samuel L. Bolinger (Law Offices of Samuel L. Bolinger) for Terry Lymon. Cameron G. Kynes (McGuireWoods) for CSX Railroad Transportation.

Companies: CSX Railroad Transportation

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination IndianaNews