U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Background

The Federal Railroad Administration sets railroad safety standards, including color-vision requirements for locomotive engineers and conductors. Its regulations list 12 accepted color-vision tests. Employees who fail an accepted test may receive further medical or practical evaluation to determine whether they can safely perform their jobs.

Union Pacific required the 21 Claimants to take both the 14-plate Ishihara test and a company-developed “light cannon” test. The Ishihara test is one of the federally accepted tests; the light-cannon test is not listed among those tests. The light-cannon test required employees to identify the color of a light on a mobile device from a quarter mile away. The EEOC alleged that the test did not replicate actual working conditions and did not accurately measure employees’ ability to identify railroad-signal colors.

Thirteen Claimants passed the Ishihara test but failed the light-cannon test. Eight failed both tests and presented medical evidence that they did not have a color-vision impairment preventing them from accurately identifying railroad-signal colors. Union Pacific allegedly removed all 21 from service, permanently restricted them from positions requiring accurate color identification, denied them federal certification, placed them on involuntary indefinite leave, and terminated them from employment.

Claims and motion to dismiss

The EEOC brought three claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Count 1 alleged disparate treatment based on Union Pacific’s treating the Claimants as disabled. Count 2 alleged that the light-cannon test was an unlawful qualification standard that screened out, or tended to screen out, people with disabilities. Count 3 alleged that Union Pacific unlawfully required vision-related inquiries and medical examinations of some Claimants who had passed the Ishihara test.

Union Pacific moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately alleges a legally actionable claim. It argued that the Claimants were not “qualified” because they failed a visual-acuity test and lacked certification. The court rejected that argument at the pleading stage. For the 13 Claimants who passed the Ishihara test, the EEOC plausibly alleged that they met the applicable federal standards and should not have been subjected to the light-cannon test as a condition of certification. For the eight Claimants who failed the Ishihara test, the EEOC plausibly alleged that the light-cannon test was not a valid, reliable, and comparable further evaluation.

The court also rejected Union Pacific’s argument that the ADA qualification-standard claim could not be based on employees being “regarded as” disabled. The court concluded that the ADA’s definition of disability includes people regarded as having an impairment. Whether the light-cannon test was valid and whether it was job-related and consistent with business necessity raised factual issues that were not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss.

As to Count 3, the court found that the EEOC plausibly alleged that Union Pacific required unlawful disability-related inquiries and medical examinations. The allegations concerned a vision-history form given to the Group 1 Claimants and medical examinations required of four of them after they passed the Ishihara test.

Timeliness and judicial notice

Union Pacific argued that claims involving 18 of the 21 Claimants were barred by the 300-day filing period for discrimination charges. The court found the EEOC’s tolling argument persuasive. The Claimants asserted that they were members of an earlier class action, and the court concluded that the statute of limitations was tolled while that class action was pending. Because the Claimants filed their charges within 300 days after the class was decertified, the court held that the timeliness defense did not require dismissal at this stage.

The court granted Union Pacific’s request for judicial notice of the Claimants’ discrimination charges. It denied the request as to two Operating Crew Review Board decisions because Union Pacific offered them to establish the truth of a disputed matter—the validity of the light-cannon test—and the decisions were not precedential.

Disposition

Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss. The court also denied as moot the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for leave to file a notice of supplemental authority.