Work Limitations Unlawfully Imposed on Foreman Who Had Brief Cardiac Arrest

Takeaway: Million-dollar jury verdicts in equal employment opportunity cases may be subject to large reductions due to federal caps on compensatory and punitive damages. However, some state law damages are uncapped.

A former railroad foreman successfully challenged work restrictions that were unlawfully imposed on him based on perceived health limitations.

A federal appeals court upheld a lower court decision in favor of the foreman under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The foreman alleged that the railroad discriminated against him by imposing work limitations because of perceptions about his cardiovascular health and by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation during a related cardiovascular test. A jury had returned a verdict for the employee on both claims, awarding him damages in excess of $1 million.

The foreman’s position required him to oversee train mechanics, known as carmen, and to assume their responsibilities if none of them were available to respond to a distressed train. Some of the carmen’s responsibilities require significant physical exertion, including replacing “knuckles,” part of the equipment used to link the cars of a train together. These knuckles weigh approximately 86 pounds each.

The physical component of the foreman’s job became a problem only when he suffered complications related to a bleeding ulcer. One of those complications was a brief cardiac arrest. The employee was resuscitated, underwent a successful operation, and fully recovered. Before the employee could resume his duties, the railroad required him to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation.

The railroad required him to perform a test where he had to walk quickly or jog on a treadmill to demonstrate his aerobic capacity. The employee stopped the test early because of fatigue. He explained to the railroad that his fatigue was due to pain in his knees caused by osteoarthritis rather than any issue with his heart.

The employee requested that the railroad allow him to perform an alternate test on a bicycle because the bike would put less strain on his knees. The railroad refused to accept the results of a bicycle test. Based on the results of the treadmill test, the railroad’s doctor concluded that the employee had low aerobic capacity and would be unable to perform strenuous labor. The doctor thus imposed work restrictions that prevented the employee from returning to work as a foreman.

The employee sued the railroad, alleging discrimination under the ADA. A jury returned a verdict for him, awarding damages of $1,023,424. The railroad appealed.  

ADA Discrimination Claim

The court said that, in order to establish his claim of disability bias under the ADA, the employee was required to show that:

• He had a disability.
• He was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation.
• The employer imposed work limitations on him because of his disability.  

The court first noted that, under the ADA, being regarded as having a disability can be enough to establish a disability if the employee shows that his employer subjected him to an adverse action because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment.

Physical or mental impairments include any physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more of the body’s systems, such as the cardiovascular system.

The railroad’s doctor admitted that he required the treadmill test and then refused to allow the employee to return to work because of his concern that the employee’s heart was impaired. Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that the railroad regarded the employee as having a disability, the court noted.  

An employee is qualified under the ADA if they can perform the essential functions of their job with or without reasonable accommodation. The jury heard considerable evidence that the employee could lift the 86-pound knuckles and perform other strenuous activities without accommodation. His doctors cleared him for work without lifting limitations. A reasonable jury, the court said, could conclude that the employee was qualified to perform the essential functions of a foreman.

The court further concluded that the jury reasonably found that the railroad acted because of the employee’s disability. The evidence showed that the railroad stopped the employee from working as a foreman because it believed he had diminished cardiovascular health, the court said.

Reasonable Accommodation Claim

Discrimination in violation of the ADA includes failure to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual, the court explained.

Employers are generally required to administer tests in a manner that accurately reflects the employee’s ability rather than the limitations caused by their impairment, the court said. Reasonable accommodation thus includes making the appropriate adjustments or modifications to examinations for individuals with disabilities.

The employee testified that he has arthritis in his knees that limits his ability to walk quickly enough on the treadmill to demonstrate his aerobic capacity accurately. This was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to conclude that the employee has a disability: a physical impairment (arthritis) that substantially limits a major life activity (walking). There was also evidence that the railroad knew of the employee’s knee problems: It had his medical records, and the employee told the railroad’s doctor that his knees limited his performance on the treadmill test.

The employee requested an accommodation when he asked whether he could take the test on a bicycle rather than a treadmill. Once he made this request, the railroad was required to engage in an informal, interactive process with him, designed to identify the limitations caused by the employee’s disability and find potential reasonable accommodations to overcome those limitations, the court explained. The railroad failed to do this, informing the employee that only results from a treadmill test would be acceptable.

There was also evidence, the court said, that the company could reasonably have accommodated the employee. Three physicians testified that a bicycle test is a medically appropriate alternative to the treadmill test for someone with impaired knees.

The appeals court affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the employee. 

Sanders v. Union Pacific Railroad Co, 8th Cir., No. 22-2863 (July 25, 2024).

Joanne Deschenaux, J.D., is a freelance writer in Annapolis, Md.