U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Aragon

Background

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this lawsuit on September 29, 2023, against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Dozens of individual railroad workers — locomotive engineers and conductors — joined the case as plaintiff-intervenors. The core allegation is that Union Pacific uses a color vision field test, known as the 'light cannon' test, to impose work restrictions on employees regardless of whether those employees actually have a color vision deficiency or whether they can safely perform their jobs. Union Pacific's earlier motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety. The case is now in active discovery.

Three separate motions to compel discovery were before the court: (1) a motion by the plaintiff-intervenors seeking various categories of documents from Union Pacific; (2) a motion by Union Pacific seeking medical records and medical release authorizations from each plaintiff-intervenor; and (3) a motion by the EEOC seeking documents related to a 2012 train collision near Goodwell, Oklahoma.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 allows parties to obtain discovery of any non-privileged information relevant to any party's claim or defense, so long as the request is proportional to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery must first show the information is relevant; if that threshold is met, the party resisting production bears the burden of showing lack of relevance or undue burden. Proportionality factors include the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to information, their resources, and whether the burden of production outweighs the likely benefit.

Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion to Compel (Doc. 197) — Granted in Part, Denied in Part

Interrogatory No. 13 — Denied

Plaintiff-intervenors sought a defined list of 'Business Objectives' for each person Union Pacific claims made the decision to impose work restrictions on each plaintiff-intervenor, and for each management individual who affected their accommodation determinations. Plaintiff-intervenors represented these requests likely applied only to two individuals — Dr. John Holland and Dr. Laura Gillis, Union Pacific's chief medical officers during the relevant period.

The court found the interrogatory fatally vague and ambiguous. The term 'Business Objectives' was undefined and unclear, and the second clause concerning 'each management individual' was phrased in a way the court found impossible to answer. Because the court could not determine what material was being sought, it could not assess relevance or proportionality. The motion was denied as to Interrogatory No. 13.

Request for Production (RPD) No. 21 — Granted

This request sought performance management evaluations, supervisor evaluations, self-evaluations, goals, metrics, and ratings for each person Union Pacific claims made the decision to impose work restrictions on each plaintiff-intervenor and each management individual who affected their accommodation determinations, from 2012 to the present. Plaintiff-intervenors argued these materials were relevant to show Union Pacific's own internal assessments of the people who decided to rely on the light cannon test.

The court agreed, finding that the decision to impose work restrictions is the central issue in the case, and that performance evaluation records of the employees who made those decisions are relevant. The court found the request applied specifically to Dr. Holland and Dr. Gillis and granted the motion as to RPD No. 21 for those two individuals only.

RPD No. 23 — Granted

This request sought all policies, rules, and procedures documenting Union Pacific's performance management processes from 2012 to the present for all personnel in the Health and Medical Services Department involved in implementing the light cannon test, including specifically Dr. John Holland and Debra Gengler. Union Pacific objected that the request was vague, ambiguous, and temporally overbroad.

The court granted this request for similar reasons as RPD No. 21, finding performance metrics used to evaluate those who implemented the vision test relevant to the claims. The court also found the small class of employees covered by the request meant there was no undue burden on Union Pacific.

RPD No. 17 — Denied

This request sought collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between Union Pacific and unions representing locomotive engineers, conductors, and other train service employees from January 1, 2014 to the present, along with all attachments and incorporated documents. Plaintiff-intervenors argued the CBAs were relevant to establishing the essential job functions they were deemed unable to perform and to damages calculations.

The court sided with Union Pacific, finding this request unduly burdensome. The court noted that plaintiff-intervenors themselves are parties to the CBAs, are already familiar with their essential job functions, could request their own personnel files, and could access the CBAs without Union Pacific's assistance. Because the requested discovery could be more easily obtained by plaintiff-intervenors themselves from their own sources, the court denied the motion as to RPD No. 17.

Interrogatory No. 11 — Denied

This interrogatory asked Union Pacific to identify any third-party individual consultant or consulting company that participated in the creation of or any changes to Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty program from 2012 to the present. Plaintiff-intervenors argued they had not received complete information about consultants who may have advised on changes to the light cannon test after it was implemented (as distinct from consultants involved in creating it).

The court found that while the light cannon test exists within the broader fitness-for-duty program, discovery into the entire program — which encompassed much more than the vision test — was too far afield. The court also found that plaintiff-intervenors had already received the relevant slice of information covered by this interrogatory, specifically the identities of third-party consultants involved in developing the light cannon test. The distinction between consultants involved in developing versus later modifying the test was found only minimally relevant. The motion was denied as to Interrogatory No. 11.

Union Pacific's Motion to Compel (Doc. 206) — Granted as Modified

Union Pacific sought documents relating to any healthcare examination or treatment each plaintiff-intervenor received from five years before their removal from service to the present, along with signed medical release authorizations allowing Union Pacific to obtain records directly from healthcare providers.

Plaintiff-intervenors objected that the request was duplicative, overbroad, burdensome, and sought protected documents. They argued that only color vision records were relevant, since the work restrictions were based solely on the color vision screening, and they had agreed to produce only vision-related medical records and records from primary care providers from the date of removal from service to the present.

The court agreed with Union Pacific that physical medical records are relevant. Under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate they could perform the essential functions of their job at the time of the alleged discriminatory act. Because plaintiff-intervenors allege they were medically capable of performing their essential job functions, their physical medical history is directly relevant. The court cited case law holding that medical records are routinely found relevant in ADA cases.

However, the court made two modifications to cabin the request:

1. Mental and chemical health records excluded. The court found these records not at issue and not relevant to the claims. The court cited the Supreme Court's recognition of a broad psychotherapist-patient privilege and noted that plaintiff-intervenors' mental health conditions are not at issue in this litigation.

2. Time period shortened. The court reduced the look-back period from five years (as Union Pacific requested) to three years before each plaintiff-intervenor's removal from service to the present.

With those modifications, Union Pacific's motion was granted. Plaintiff-intervenors must provide physical medical authorizations covering three years from their removal from service to the present.

EEOC's Motion to Compel (Doc. 218) — Denied in Full

The EEOC sought two categories of documents: (1) personnel documents of the locomotive engineers and conductors involved in a June 24, 2012 head-on train collision near Goodwell, Oklahoma; and (2) documents and communications regarding that collision. The EEOC argued these materials were relevant to whether the light cannon test was job-related and a business necessity, and whether its implementation was pretextual.

Union Pacific did not dispute that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a report after the Goodwell incident that explicitly recommended Union Pacific replace its color vision field test. However, Union Pacific argued that discovery into the causes of the decade-old collision was neither proportional nor relevant to the actual claims.

The court agreed with Union Pacific. The court reasoned that this case is about what happened after the crash — specifically, the development and implementation of the light cannon test — not about the causes of the Goodwell collision itself. The court found it insufficient to justify personnel records and communications of those involved in the accident merely because that accident provided context for creating the test. The claims concern the lawfulness of the work restrictions imposed on plaintiff-intervenors, not whether color vision deficiency caused the Goodwell collision or whether the test was an overly extreme response to it. The EEOC's motion was denied in full.

Order

- Plaintiff-intervenors' motion (Doc. 197) is granted as to RPD Nos. 21 and 23 (limited to Dr. Holland and Dr. Gillis for RPD 21); Union Pacific's response due within 14 days. - Plaintiff-intervenors' motion (Doc. 197) is denied as to all other requests (Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 13, and RPD No. 17). - Union Pacific's motion (Doc. 206) is granted as modified; plaintiff-intervenors must provide physical medical authorizations covering three years before removal from service to the present, within 14 days. - EEOC's motion (Doc. 218) is denied in full.