268 F. Supp. 3d 983
D. Minn.2017Background
- Coons received a conditional offer from BNSF for a Mechanical Shop Laborer — Hostler Helper and completed a pre-employment medical-history questionnaire disclosing several conditions.
- BNSF requested additional medical records and then required a current MRI (with comparative analysis) at Coons’s expense; Coons said he could not afford a non‑medically‑necessary MRI, and BNSF rescinded the offer.
- Coons sued under the ADA and Minnesota Human Rights Act asserting disparate‑impact (Counts III & IV), an unlawful pre‑employment medical‑examination claim (Count V), and failure‑to‑accommodate claims (Counts VII & VIII), among others.
- Coons served discovery seeking records and information about other applicants who were required to obtain MRIs/extra mental‑health information, and served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice covering job duties and those applicants; BNSF objected and sought a protective order.
- The magistrate judge compelled limited discovery (time window Jan 1, 2006 – Jan 1, 2010) and ordered a Rule 30(b)(6) witness; BNSF objected and also moved for judgment on the pleadings as to several counts.
- The district court affirmed the magistrate judge in part, remanded part of the discovery order, granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing the disparate‑impact and agreed‑withdrawn failure‑to‑accommodate claims without prejudice, and denied judgment as to the unlawful medical‑examination claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are disparate‑impact claims (ADA & MHRA) plausibly pleaded? | BNSF’s policy of requiring medically unnecessary imaging or superfluous records at applicant expense has a disparate impact on disabled applicants. | Complaint fails to identify a facially neutral selection criterion applied to all applicants; Coons’s rescission resulted from his failure to provide an MRI, not from a screening policy. | Dismissed without prejudice — plaintiff failed to plead facts showing a facially neutral practice that screens out disabled applicants. |
| Is Count V (unlawful pre‑employment medical exam) deficient because plaintiff cited wrong statutory subsection? | Although the complaint cites the subsection for employees, the allegations fairly notify BNSF that plaintiff challenges use of the pre‑employment medical exam to rescind the offer. | Citation to employee‑only subsection undermines the claim. | Denied — complaint plausibly alleges misuse of pre‑employment medical exam results under §12112(d)(3); BNSF had adequate notice. |
| Should failure‑to‑accommodate claims remain? | (Coons) — initially asserted failures to accommodate. | (BNSF) — contends dismissal; parties agree to voluntary dismissal. | Counts VII and VIII dismissed without prejudice by agreement. |
| Was magistrate judge’s discovery order (30(b)(6) and requests about other applicants) erroneous? | Discovery is relevant to disparate‑impact claim and proportional within a narrowed time frame. | Compelling such discovery is duplicative and unnecessary, especially if disparate‑impact claims fail. | Affirmed in part (job duties 30(b)(6) testimony) and remanded in part (discovery concerning other applicants) due to dismissal of disparate‑impact claims; magistrate’s rulings not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corwin v. City of Independence, 829 F.3d 695 (8th Cir.) (standards for judgment on the pleadings)
- Haney v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 837 F.3d 918 (8th Cir.) (12(b)(6) standard applies to judgment on the pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (disparate‑impact theory under the ADA)
- Evers v. Alliant Techsys., Inc., 241 F.3d 948 (8th Cir.) (elements of disparate‑impact prima facie case)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (pleading does not require full prima facie case)
- Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir.) (context for plausibility and prima facie elements)
- Keith v. County of Oakland, 703 F.3d 918 (6th Cir.) (individualized inquiry requirement under ADA)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346 (per curiam) (pleading gives fair notice; amendment permitted when claim is evident from facts)