Dansie v. Union Pacific Railroad, 42 F.4th 1184

Union Pacific schedules conductors on a 24/7 on-call system that requires reporting within two hours; attendance is measured by availability and repeated layoffs can trigger discipline up to termination.
Kelly Dansie, an HIV-positive employee with AIDS (and history of cancer), worked as an on-call conductor and required ongoing treatment that sometimes caused fatigue and missed work.
After reinstatement from a prior disciplinary suspension, Dansie sought an ADA accommodation via employer Form E: he (and his physician) estimated he would need up to five days off per month, and (per his evidence) only until he became FMLA-eligible; he also sought clarification of "full time" availability but the employer did not clarify.
Employer managers denied requests for paid leave and, after several attendance charges, terminated Dansie; he sued under the ADA (failure to accommodate/interactive process) and the FMLA (interference).
The district court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific on the ADA claim (finding the accommodation request indefinite) but allowed the FMLA claim to go to trial; a jury found for Union Pacific on the FMLA claim; this appeal reverses the ADA summary judgment and affirms the FMLA rulings (majority), with a partial dissent urging a new FMLA trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dansie requested a plausibly reasonable ADA accommodation and whether Union Pacific engaged in the required interactive process	Dansie requested up to five days/month (until FMLA eligibility), sought clarification of "full time," and the employer obstructed/failed to meaningfully engage	Union Pacific says the request was indefinite, unpredictable, and incompatible with the safety-sensitive full‑time requirements; it contends it engaged sufficiently	Reversed summary judgment. A reasonable jury could find the interactive process broke down and that leave (or paid leave, or reassignment) were plausibly reasonable accommodations raising triable issues.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing supplemental jury instructions on FMLA questions and denying a new trial	The jury was confused about retroactivity/"attempt to obtain" FMLA and needed clarification that attempts to qualify can be protected; failure to clarify may have prejudiced Dansie	The original instructions correctly stated the law; the jury was told to consult them and the question was not central because the jury's task was limited to whether Union Pacific would have fired him regardless of FMLA	Affirmed. Majority holds the court did not abuse discretion in referring the jury to the instructions as a whole and denying a new trial; a concurrence would have remanded for a new FMLA trial.

Aubrey v. Koppes, 975 F.3d 995 (10th Cir. 2020) (explaining interactive-process and burden-shifting in ADA accommodation claims)
Lincoln v. BNSF Ry., 900 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2018) (discussing elements of ADA failure-to-accommodate and limits on standalone interactive-process claims)
Albert v. Smith's Food & Drug Ctrs., 356 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2004) (employer-employee duty to engage in good-faith interactive process)
Punt v. Kelly Servs., 862 F.3d 1040 (10th Cir. 2017) (permissible types of evidence to prove failure-to-accommodate; leave can be a reasonable accommodation)
Exby-Stolley v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 979 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2020) (overview of ADA discrimination categories and related standards)
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (1946) (trial judge's duty to clarify jury confusion during deliberations)