Frank Hohn v. BNSF Railway Company
707 F.3d 995
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- BNSF placed Hohn on paid medical leave after concerns arose about his vision impairment and his ability to perform the locomotive machinist role.
- Medical evaluations diagnosed advanced retinitis pigmentosa with night blindness and restricted visual field; doctors imposed restrictions limiting movement, operation of machinery, and certain physical tasks.
- Hohn reported a safety concern via a railway hotline about a locomotive issue; a shop supervisor later downplayed the concern and allowed on-site testing to proceed contrary to Hohn’s view.
- Hohn alleged disability discrimination and failure to reasonably accommodate under the ADA and NFEPA, and Nebraska retaliation under state law; the district court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim and later trial proceeded on the discrimination claims.
- Evidence about Hohn’s safety complaint was excluded as irrelevant to the ADA-discrimination issues; the jury found for BNSF on the disability claims and costs were taxed against Hohn.
- Hohn appealed, challenging summary judgment rulings, evidentiary exclusions, and post-trial motions related to new trial and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of whistleblower claim | Hohn argues claim timely under EEOC tolling. | NHOC last action triggers deadline; untimely under Neb. statute. | Untimely; 90-day limit measured from NEOC’s last action. |
| Relevance of safety complaint evidence | Safety complaint supports ability to perform essential functions and retaliation theory. | Retaliation claim dismissed; safety evidence irrelevant to ADA claims. | No abuse of discretion; evidence excluded as not outcome-determinative. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for disability discrimination | Hohn could perform essential functions with/without accommodation. | Medical restrictions precluded essential-function performance; direct-threat defense possible. | Evidence supported jury finding Hohn could not perform essential functions with/without accommodation. |
| Motion for a new trial | Verdict against weight of the evidence. | Evidence supported verdict; ADA not violated. | No abuse of discretion; verdict not against weight of the evidence. |
| Costs ruling | Costs should be set aside due to error. | Costs appropriate; district court ruling should stand. | District court did not abuse its discretion; costs affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Martin v. City of St. Paul, 680 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment; burden on movant)
- McPheeters v. Black & Veatch Corp., 427 F.3d 1095 (8th Cir. 2005) (broad discretion in evidentiary rulings; reversible only with prejudice)
- Bennett v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc., 318 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2003) (evidentiary exclusion when no impact on verdict)
- Otto v. City of Victoria, 685 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012) (ADA: employer need not tolerate prohibited activities; cannot require forbidden functions)
- Rosberg v. Johnson, 815 N.W.2d 867 (Neb. 2012) (statutory tolling interpretation under Nebraska law)
- Appletree Square I, Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 29 F.3d 1283 (8th Cir. 1994) ( Erie doctrine; state limitations apply unless federal rule applicable)