Danny Snapp v. Bnsf Railway Co.
889 F.3d 1088
9th Cir.2018Background
- Danny Snapp, long‑time BNSF employee, was on long‑term disability for sleep apnea; CIGNA terminated benefits in 2005–2007 after he declined a requested sleep study and related disputes followed.
- BNSF notified Snapp in January 2008 he had 60 days to secure a position or be dismissed; Snapp exchanged letters primarily about reinstating disability benefits and did not clearly request reinstatement to work until later communications.
- Snapp sent a February 28, 2008 letter seeking to displace a yardmaster and requesting a 90‑day medical leave; the Union and BNSF determined he lacked seniority and BNSF terminated his employment after the 60‑day period expired.
- Snapp sued BNSF under the ADA for failure to accommodate; Ninth Circuit reversed initial summary judgment and remanded for trial on whether Snapp requested an accommodation and whether BNSF failed to engage in the interactive process.
- At trial Snapp sought jury instructions (1) treating failure to engage in the interactive process as standalone liability or triggering burden shifting to the employer at trial, and (2) treating his burden on accommodation as only a production burden; the district court refused these instructions and the jury found for BNSF.
- Snapp also argued that BNSF was bound by admissions from its Rule 30(b)(6) designee; the district court allowed full context and denied judgment as a matter of law. Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to engage in interactive process alone creates liability or shifts burden to employer at trial | Snapp: failing to engage should create liability or at least shift burden of proving no reasonable accommodation to BNSF at trial | BNSF: Barnett/Morton burden shifting is a summary‑judgment tool and should not be extended into jury instructions at trial | Court: Declined to extend Barnett/Morton burden shifting to trial; failure to engage does not by itself create liability absent proof a reasonable accommodation was available |
| Proper allocation of burden of proof on reasonable accommodation at trial | Snapp: plaintiff should only bear a slight production burden; employer should prove lack of accommodation/undue hardship | BNSF: plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial; undue hardship remains employer's affirmative defense | Court: Affirmed district court instructions placing ultimate burden of proof on plaintiff and undue hardship on employer; refused Snapp’s proposed production‑only instruction |
| Whether the Ninth Circuit’s earlier memorandum constituted law of the case mandating instruction | Snapp: prior panel language held BNSF’s failure to engage constitutes discrimination and binds trial court | BNSF: earlier memorandum was limited to summary‑judgment context and not intended as trial instruction mandate | Held: Prior memorandum did not decide the trial‑instruction issue and is not law of the case |
| Whether BNSF was bound by its Rule 30(b)(6) designee’s deposition answers as admissions | Snapp: Freshour’s deposition admissions established request for accommodation and failure to engage as a matter of law | BNSF: designee’s isolated answers require context; 30(b)(6) testimony is evidence but not conclusive judicial admission | Held: 30(b)(6) testimony is evidentiary and may be explained or contextualized; district court properly let jury consider full record and denied JMOL |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizes employer duty to engage in interactive process; liability requires that a reasonable accommodation would have been possible)
- Morton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 272 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2001) (applies Barnett in summary‑judgment context and discusses burden of persuasion language later characterized as dicta)
- US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (Supreme Court decision addressing seniority systems and summary‑judgment analytical framework for accommodation claims)
- Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes summary‑judgment production burden from plaintiff’s ultimate burden of persuasion at trial)
- Sanghvi v. City of Claremont, 328 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2003) (criticizes complex burden‑shifting jury instructions and endorses submitting the ultimate discrimination question to the jury)