Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Ore.: Train conductor, fired due to dislocated shoulder under blanket policy, nets $27M verdict, (Aug 21, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The policy mandated that because he suffered an anterior shoulder dislocation, he could no longer be in train service regardless of his individual capabilities or his medical clearance to return to work.

Upholding an almost $27,000,000 verdict against Union Pacific Railroad, a federal district court in Oregon affirmed a jury’s finding that the railroad violated the ADA and Oregon law by terminating a train conductor who had been medically cleared to return to work after dislocating his right shoulder based on its blanket application of its “1 percent rule.” The policy barred employees from working in safety-sensitive roles if they had a medical condition deemed to put them in at least a one-percent risk of sudden incapacitation. Adopting the jury’s advisory verdict on punitive damages of $25,000,000, the court found “it is more likely than not that Union Pacific was aware of anti-discrimination principles and that its policy was facially discriminatory; that Union Pacific directed the policy at employees with a certain medical diagnosis; and that Union Pacific used the policy to restrict those employees from work or returning to work” (Granas v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, No. 1:21-cv-00116-AA (D. Ore. Aug. 18, 2025)).

Shoulder injury. In January 2019, the conductor dislocated his right shoulder while working on the ranch he and his wife owned. After receiving treatment from an orthopedic surgeon and attending physical therapy, he was released to work without restrictions in April 2019.

Barred from returning. After he advised the fitness-for-duty nurse that he had been cleared to return to work and provided medical documentation, Union Pacific requested additional documentation from the physical therapist. She noted that she had cautioned him to initially avoid “heavy lifting, pushing, pulling, or jerking motions.” On May 20, he received a letter from Union Pacific stating that he was prohibited from climbing ladders and therefore could not return to his job. He disputed this assessment given that he had been engaging in strenuous activities around the ranch, including climbing ladders, and asked to speak with the company physician. He also started working a construction job in order to help pay the bills.

Shortly thereafter, the employee received notice of a decision from the associate medical director explaining that he could not return to his job since he was subject to permanent restrictions. After he objected, the associate director told him that his main concern was about future instability of his shoulder.

“1 percent rule.” The employee appealed, and the chief medical director upheld the determination. The director based his determination on the “1 percent rule,” which he had implemented in 2016. Under the policy, any employee who had a 1 percent per year chance of sudden incapacitation could not work in safety sensitive jobs. Inclusion in the rule was determined by reference to a listing of various conditions, such as stroke, seizures, heart attack, embolism, thrombosis, or diabetic coma, as well as the conductor’s condition—anterior shoulder dislocation.

No individualized determination. Thus, Union Pacific permanently restricted the employee from climbing or working on railcar ladders, regardless of the extent of his injury or individual capacity. This was so even though the chief medical director reviewed doctor’s notes stating that he was strong, stable, had bilateral range of motion, was working construction, climbing ladders, and carrying lumber. The policy effectively barred him from working in train service.

Jury verdict. After a one-week trial, a unanimous jury found Union Pacific had violated the ADA and Oregon law by discriminating against the conductor based on his disability and by applying criteria that screens out or tends to screen out individuals with a disability. The jury awarded and recommended damages in the amounts of $952,863 for combined back and front pay, $1,000,000 in noneconomic damages, and $25,000,000 in punitive damages.

District court affirms. The court found that the conductor established by a preponderance of the evidence that he was disabled under the ADA and Oregon law; that he was a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job as a trainman; and that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability when Union Pacific placed him under permanent restrictions and refused to allow him to return to his job.

Punitive damages. In addition to finding that the evidence also established that he was entitled to the back and front pay and compensatory damages awards, the court also adopted the jury’s advisory verdict on punitive damages. The evidence demonstrated that Union Pacific intentionally discriminated against the employee when it terminated him based on his disability, and also that the 1 percent policy was unlawful and screened out or tended to screen out individuals with disabilities. As such, the railroad excluded the conductor from returning to his job because of his anterior shoulder dislocation, regardless of his individual condition.

The evidence also showed that Union Pacific read his personal medical records and statements from his physicians that he was physically fit and strong post-injury, and could perform all the functions required for his job, yet refused to allow him to return to work based solely on its blanket policy. Noting that the record also established that the railroad earned $18.5 million each day in profit, the court found the jury’s decision that the conductor should be awarded more than one-day’s profit served the broader functions of “deterrence and retribution.”

ADA’s statutory limits. Federal law limits compensatory and punitive damages under the ADA to $300,000, combined. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D). However, the jury found for the conductor on both federal and state law discrimination claims and awarded damages without specifying the allocation between the claims. In the absence of a statutory mandate to allocate damages to one claim rather than another, the court had authority to allocate the damages to either claim. Moreover, in the context of Title VII, the Ninth Circuit has held that compensatory damages allocated to claims other than the federal claims should not be subject to the federal cap.

Damages breakdown. Accordingly, the court ordered that $300,000 of the jury’s advisory punitive damages award be allocated to the conductor’s ADA claims, with the remaining $24,700,000 of the award allocated to his claim under Oregon law. In addition, the court ordered that the $952,863 in economic damages (including front and back pay) be allocated to his ADA claims. Finally, the court allocated the full $1,000,000 of the jury’s compensatory damages award to his state law claim. In sum, his total award was $26,952,863.

The case is No. 1:21-cv-00116-AA.

Judge: Aiken, A.

Attorneys: Anthony S. Petru (Hildebrand McLeod & Nelson) and James H. Kaster (Nichols Kaster) for Mark Granas. Bobbi Britton Tucker (Cozen O’Connor) for Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Companies: Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge RemediesDamages OregonNews