Garrett v. CSX Transp., Inc.
321 F. Supp. 3d 812
M.D. Tenn.2018Background
- James Garrett, a CSX locomotive engineer, was removed from service without pay for ~1 year after CSX interpreted his physician's FMLA form to impose a 6-hour/day work restriction and then discovered he had an ICD implanted in 2014.
- CSX's Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Heligman, declared Garrett medically unqualified and required cardiac tests (MET 8–8.5, LVEF >40%, no ICD discharge in prior year) before return; those requirements were not part of written CSXT policy, federal regulation, or collective-bargaining rules.
- Garrett’s treating cardiologist, Dr. Chomsky, repeatedly opined Garrett was "stable" and could return to work with no restrictions; Garrett ultimately passed a stress test in July 2017 and returned to work in September 2017.
- Garrett sued under the FMLA (interference and retaliation theories), the ADA, and Tennessee Disability Act (TDA), alleging wrongful removal and failure to accommodate; CSX moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The central disputed fact is whether Garrett was physically qualified to perform the essential functions of an engineer despite his ICD—resolving that factual dispute determines liability under all three statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference/retaliation: Was Garrett denied/interfered with FMLA leave or retaliated against for taking it? | Garrett: CSX used a mistaken 6-hour notation and then relied on speculative/unsupported medical criteria to deny intermittent leave and keep him off work. | CSX: Garrett was not physically qualified (ICD/failed fitness standards), so denial/removal was justified and not FMLA retaliation. | Denied summary judgment — factual dispute over whether CSX’s fitness-for-duty conditions were legitimate or pretextual for denying FMLA rights. |
| ADA/TDA: Was Garrett a "qualified individual" able to perform essential job functions? | Garrett: His cardiologist cleared him; disputed medical conclusions create triable issue whether he was qualified and whether accommodation was required. | CSX: Garrett’s ICD and failure to meet medical thresholds made him unqualified for safety-sensitive duties. | Denied summary judgment — material factual dispute whether job functions were essential and whether Garrett was qualified. |
| ADA: Did CSX have a job-related, business-necessity basis for its medical inquiries/exams? | Garrett: CSX cannot show it adopted or uniformly applied the stringent cardiac standards; medical necessity is contested. | CSX: Its medical inquiries were job-related and necessary to ensure safety. | Denied summary judgment — disputed whether standards were actually adopted/uniformly applied and whether they were justified. |
| Evidentiary: Can Dr. Heligman testify about his role and fitness-for-duty standards? | Garrett: Heligman is not a cardiologist/rail-safety expert and CSX failed to designate an expert. | CSX: Heligman is a fact witness as Chief Medical Officer and may give lay opinions about CSX’s fitness-for-duty process. | Denied motion to exclude; court allowed Heligman to testify as a fact/lay witness under Rule 701. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018) (summary-judgment standard and construing evidence for nonmovant)
- Walton v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2005) (FMLA serious-health-condition standard)
- Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing FMLA interference and retaliation theories)
- Edgar v. JAC Prod., Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006) (employer motive relevant to FMLA retaliation)
- Mullendore v. City of Belding, 872 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2017) (denial of FMLA benefit when action based on leave)
- Arban v. W. Pub. Corp., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (employer interference with FMLA rights)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (whether job function is essential is typically a factual question)
- Hatchett v. Philander Smith Coll., 251 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 2001) (employee must be able to perform essential functions to take intermittent/reduced-schedule FMLA leave)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (credibility and weight of evidence are jury questions)