Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BNSF Railway Co., 853 F.3d 1150

Background

Kent Duty, with a right-hand impairment from a childhood car accident (limited grip, "clawhand," functional hook grip), applied and received a conditional offer to be a locomotive electrician at BNSF.
After pre-employment medical screening (post-offer), BNSF’s medical reviewers—Comprehensive Health Services physician Dr. Wright and BNSF CMO Dr. Jarrard—found limited active wrist/finger motion and very low measured grip/pinch strength and concluded Duty could not meet BNSF’s three-point-contact safety standard for climbing.
BNSF revoked Duty’s offer, suggesting other non-manual positions he could apply for; Duty did not pursue those roles and filed an EEOC charge. The EEOC sued on his behalf under the ADA; Duty intervened and added a retaliation claim.
The district court granted summary judgment to BNSF, holding Duty was not "disabled" under the pre-2009 ADA definitions; Plaintiffs appealed limited to the "regarded as" prong of disability.
The Tenth Circuit considered whether BNSF subjectively regarded Duty as substantially limited in the major life activities of working or performing manual tasks and whether BNSF’s medical evaluation procedures violated ADA provisions for post-offer medical exams.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BNSF "regarded as" Duty disabled in the major life activity of working	BNSF mistakenly believed Duty was substantially limited for the electrician job and for other similar/broad job classes	BNSF only concluded Duty could not perform the specific locomotive-electrician job due to safety; it invited him to apply for other positions	No — evidence shows BNSF viewed limitations as job-specific, not a substantial limitation on working generally; summary judgment affirmed
Whether BNSF "regarded as" Duty disabled in performing manual tasks	BNSF viewed him as unable to climb per three-point-contact rule and unable to grip tools with both hands	The complained limitations are job-centered tasks, not manual tasks central to daily life	No — inability to perform job-specific tasks (climbing, two-handed tool use) is not a substantial limitation of daily manual tasks
Whether BNSF’s post-offer medical exam violated ADA (pre-employment medical exam rules)	Duty contends the medical process lacked an individualized inquiry under §12112(d)(3)	BNSF performed a post-offer medical examination authorized under statute; medical reviewers considered functional testing results	No ADA violation shown; any claim under (d)(3)(C) fails because Duty is not disabled under the ADA as applied here
Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment (individualized inquiry / stereotypes)	Lack of communication and some medical mischaracterizations show stereotype/insufficient individualized inquiry	Medical reviewers relied on functional-capacity testing and individualized review of results	No — doctor relied on evaluation results and safety concerns; record supports individualized inquiry and legitimate safety-based decision

Key Cases Cited

Jones v. U.P.S., 502 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir.) (elements of ADA discrimination claim)
Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (standards for "regarded as" disability)
Heartway Corp. v. EEOC, 466 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir.) (scope when working is the major life activity)
Siemon v. AT&T Corp., 117 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir.) (analysis of similar/broad range jobs for "working")
McGeshick v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir.) (limitations confined to specific tasks do not establish "regarded as" disability)
Lusk v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, 238 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir.) (employer recognition of factual limitation is not a "regarded as" error)
Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) (definition of "substantially limited" in performing manual tasks)
Justice v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 527 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir.) (assessment of employer belief about available jobs)
Schneider Nat’l, Inc. v. EEOC, 481 F.3d 507 (7th Cir.) (employer’s discretion to set safety risk thresholds)