Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Amsted Rail Co.
280 F. Supp. 3d 1141
S.D. Ill.2017Background
- Amsted Rail used a post-offer, pre-employment nerve conduction test (NCT) administered by Midwest Occupational Medicine to screen conditional chipper hires; applicants with abnormal NCTs were placed on medical hold and not hired unless they obtained a normal, in-depth NCT at their own expense.
- Chipper work involves intensive hand/arm use and exposure to vibration; Amsted argued abnormal NCTs indicated elevated risk of future carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and safety concerns.
- Thirty-nine applicants (the Claimants) received conditional offers but were placed on medical hold due to abnormal NCTs; some later provided records showing no CTS but were still not hired; Amsted ceased using NCTs for screening in June 2012.
- Montrell Ingram had a prior CTS diagnosis and corrective surgery (2006–2007), was asymptomatic with a normal NCT in 2010–2011, but was denied employment based on his medical history.
- EEOC sued under the ADA (regarded-as and record-of disability claims, disparate treatment), alleging Amsted failed to conduct individualized assessments and relied on scientifically weak NCT results; Amsted claimed safety/direct-threat and good-faith reliance on medical judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimants/Ingram were "disabled" under ADA (regarded-as/record-of) | Amsted regarded them as disabled (abnormal NCT or prior CTS); EEOC: broad ADAAA definition applies | Amsted: Ingram was unimpaired at time of decision; not regarded-as or record-of disabled | Court: EEOC entitled to summary judgment that Ingram was regarded-as disabled; most Claimants regarded-as disabled (no genuine issue) |
| Whether Claimants were "qualified" to perform chipper job | EEOC: applicants passed all other screens; abnormal NCT does not show current inability; Amsted failed to do individualized assessments | Amsted: NCT screening shows heightened future risk; thus legitimate qualification concern | Court: EEOC entitled to summary judgment — NCT result alone did not render applicants unqualified (except Cashen and Welch who had SSA declarations) |
| Whether placement on medical hold was an adverse employment action | EEOC: holds effectively foreclosed employment; Amsted imposed further testing at applicants’ expense to prevent hiring | Amsted: holds were conditional pending completion of exam; applicants failed to complete process | Court: EEOC entitled to summary judgment — holds were adverse and effectively final; requiring applicant-paid testing was improper and sham |
| Whether Amsted can prevail on direct-threat affirmative defense | EEOC: Dr. Dirkers’ decisions lacked individualized, objective, up-to-date medical basis; NCT poor predictor; risk speculative | Amsted: medical judgment based on experience and literature; abnormal NCT increases risk substantially | Court: EEOC entitled to summary judgment — Amsted cannot show a significant, individualized risk based solely on abnormal NCTs or on speculative recurrence in Ingram |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Branham v. Snow, 392 F.3d 896 (7th Cir.) (individualized assessment and regarded-as analysis)
- Felix v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Transp., 828 F.3d 560 (7th Cir.) (direct-threat framework requires reasonable medical judgment)
- Bodenstab v. County of Cook, 569 F.3d 651 (7th Cir.) (burden on employer for direct-threat defense)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (direct-threat must be based on current medical knowledge and individualized assessment)
- Koshinski v. Decatur Foundry, Inc., 177 F.3d 599 (7th Cir.) (imminent/serious current incapacity may render worker unqualified)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (claimant’s SSA representations may weigh against ADA qualification but do not automatically preclude ADA claim)