Berner v. Metropolitan Council

Background

Jason Berner was employed as a Metro Transit bus driver. After a medical leave in 2017, the Metropolitan Council required him to pass a fitness examination before returning to work. A doctor at Minnesota Occupational Health, the Council’s designated medical provider, found Berner medically unfit to drive and recommended that he be permanently disqualified.

Berner asked the Council’s Manager of Occupational Health about obtaining a second opinion. She advised him to see a Department of Transportation-registered physician at the Mayo Clinic and told him that the Council would honor a Mayo-issued certification card. A Mayo physician found Berner fit to drive, with restrictions, and issued him a three-month certification. Berner then drove under that certification.

Mayo physicians later issued Berner additional certification cards in March and October 2018, without restrictions. The Council did not object to those cards. In October 2019, however, Berner’s supervisor directed him to obtain a new card from Minnesota Occupational Health. That provider again found him permanently unfit. Mayo again found him fit and issued a certification without restrictions, and Berner returned to driving without objection from the Council.

In January 2020, the Council rejected the Mayo certification and stopped Berner from driving. It told him that only certifications from Minnesota Occupational Health would be accepted. The Council had no written policy or procedure for appealing the provider’s findings or resolving the disagreement between the Minnesota Occupational Health and Mayo physicians. Instead, it sent Berner back to Minnesota Occupational Health, where another doctor reached the same conclusion that he was unfit. After Berner was unable to find another Metro Transit position, the Council terminated his employment in October 2020.

Berner sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Metropolitan Council moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule before trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Arguments and legal standards

The Council argued that Berner was not qualified to drive because he did not have a certification from a Minnesota Occupational Health doctor. It also argued that his medical condition created a direct threat, meaning a significant health or safety risk that cannot be eliminated through reasonable changes to policies, procedures, or assistance.

Under the ADA, an employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the job and meet its other requirements. The ADA also prohibits qualification standards or employment tests that exclude or tend to exclude people with disabilities, while allowing an employer to require that an employee not pose a direct threat.

Court’s analysis

The court did not decide whether the Council’s preferred-provider process was generally reasonable or whether an employer may always rely on its preferred doctor when medical opinions conflict. Instead, it focused on how the process was applied to Berner.

The court noted that the Council had departed from its stated “Minnesota Occupational Health doctors only” approach by directing Berner to obtain a Mayo second opinion and assuring him that a Mayo certification would be accepted. The Council accepted Mayo certifications for nearly two years and two renewals, then abruptly rejected the certification and returned to the preferred-provider rule. The court also noted that the Council did not provide a clear process for resolving the conflicting opinions or refer Berner to an unaffiliated doctor for a final decision.

Viewing the evidence in Berner’s favor, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the Council unreasonably declared him permanently unfit to drive. A jury could also find that the Mayo certification qualified him to drive, that his nearly two years of driving without incident under Mayo certifications indicated he did not pose a direct threat, and that the Council failed to follow the process it had represented would protect his rights under the ADA.

Disposition

The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning the reasonableness of the Council’s medical-fitness process and the medical opinions produced through that process. Those disputes also prevented summary judgment on Berner’s ADA and Minnesota Human Rights Act claims.

The court therefore denied the Metropolitan Council’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion did not resolve the merits of Berner’s claims or determine whether he was ultimately qualified to drive or posed a direct threat.