Donahue v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-00448
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Donahue v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Judge Chesney granted summary judgment to Union Pacific because the plaintiffs’ ADA claims were filed too late.
Justin Donahue, Jason Campbell, and Jacob Goss, whose Americans with Disabilities Act claims against Union Pacific Railroad Company were held time-barred; Union Pacific received summary judgment.
What happened
Justin Donahue, Jason Campbell, and Jacob Goss sued Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that its color-vision testing led to permanent restrictions preventing them from doing their jobs. Union Pacific asked the court to end the case because the plaintiffs filed their required discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission too late.
The court ruled that each plaintiff filed his charge more than 300 days after Union Pacific imposed the permanent work restriction. The plaintiffs argued that a prior class action had paused the filing deadline, but the court found that the proposed class later became narrower and did not include employees tested under the Federal Railroad Administration’s periodic certification requirements. The court also noted that the earlier class action did not seek certification for the plaintiffs’ disparate-impact claim.
The court held that the plaintiffs’ Americans with Disabilities Act claims were time-barred and granted Union Pacific’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Chesney entered the order on September 16, 2022.
The detailed version
- Donahue v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · No. 3:21-cv-00448
- Maxine Chesney
- Sept. 16, 2022
Background
Justin Donahue, Jason Campbell, and Jacob Goss alleged that they formerly worked for Union Pacific as conductors, and that their jobs required them to read and interpret colored railroad signals. The opinion also states that Donahue worked as a remote-control operator and Goss worked as a locomotive engineer. The plaintiffs alleged that Union Pacific required periodic color-vision testing under its fitness-for-duty program because Federal Railroad Administration rules required certification of employees responsible for train movement.
Before April 2016, according to the complaint, employees who failed the 14-Plate Ishihara color-vision test could take an alternative test using existing train signal masts. Union Pacific later changed the alternative test to a Light Cannon test. Each plaintiff alleged that he failed both tests and was then placed under permanent work restrictions that prevented him from working in a position requiring him to identify colored signals.
The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act for disability discrimination based on disparate treatment and disparate impact. Union Pacific moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the 300-day deadline for filing a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Legal standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion, but the opposing party must identify specific evidence supporting a trial-worthy factual dispute.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that a person generally must first file a timely Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge before bringing an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit in federal court. The charge must be filed within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory event.
The court found it undisputed that each plaintiff filed his charge more than 300 days after Union Pacific imposed the permanent restriction at issue. Donahue filed his charge on April 24, 2020, more than 300 days after May 24, 2017. Campbell filed his charge on April 10, 2020, more than 300 days after May 22, 2018. Goss filed his charge on December 10, 2020, more than 300 days after Union Pacific imposed his permanent restriction.
The plaintiffs relied on a rule that can pause the limitations period for members of a proposed class while a class action is pending. They relied on an earlier class action involving Union Pacific employees, which asserted Americans with Disabilities Act disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims.
The court explained that the earlier case’s proposed class was narrowed when the plaintiffs later moved for class certification. The narrowed proposed class covered Union Pacific employees with disparate-treatment claims who had been or would be subject to a fitness-for-duty examination because of a reportable health event. The opinion gives examples of such events, including a heart attack, a seizure, or a significant vision change affecting color vision.
The court found that Donahue, Campbell, and Goss did not allege that their examinations resulted from reportable health events. Instead, they alleged that their examinations occurred because of the Federal Railroad Administration’s periodic certification requirements. The court therefore held that they were not included in the narrowed proposed class and were not entitled to continued pausing of the filing deadline after August 17, 2018, when the motion for class certification was filed. The court also noted that the earlier plaintiffs did not seek class certification for the disparate-impact claim.
Disposition
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ Americans with Disabilities Act claims were time-barred and granted Union Pacific Railroad Company’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered the order on September 16, 2022.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.