Jimmie Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 826 F.3d 806

J.B. Hunt required commercial drivers to hold current DOT medical certification under 49 C.F.R. § 391.41–.43 and company policy.
On May 19, 2010 Williams fainted and was diagnosed with syncope and ventricular tachycardia; he went on medical leave.
A June–July 2010 Concentra examiner (Dr. Howard) certified Williams as DOT-qualified; J.B. Hunt later received a report from Williams’s treating doctor (Dr. Nguyen) indicating syncope/ventricular tachycardia.
A Concentra reviewer (Dr. Wittels) rescinded Williams’s DOT certification after reviewing the conflicting records; J.B. Hunt sought further medical information and warned Williams about termination if he could not return or provide documentation.
Williams did not pursue the DOT’s dispute-resolution process under 49 C.F.R. § 391.47, did not provide additional supporting medical documentation to the employer, and was administratively terminated after his leave expired.
Williams sued under the ADA alleging wrongful termination; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (failure to exhaust § 391.47), and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the alternative ground of summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhaustion of DOT § 391.47 is jurisdictional before an ADA suit	Williams argued district court wrongly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction	J.B. Hunt contended plaintiff failed to pursue DOT dispute process first	Court: § 391.47 exhaustion is not jurisdictional; district court erred to dismiss under 12(b)(1)
Whether Williams was a “qualified individual” under the ADA when terminated	Williams claimed he was qualified (pointing to Dr. Howard certification and later medical evidence)	J.B. Hunt maintained Williams lacked DOT certification after it was rescinded and thus was not qualified	Court: Williams was not qualified because his DOT certification had been rescinded and he did not seek § 391.47 review; summary judgment for employer
Whether employer action conflicted with ADA because of bias, bad faith, or collusion	Williams alleged administrative tampering and collusion between employer and its physicians	J.B. Hunt argued no evidence of bias; medical review was routine and permissible	Court: No evidence of bad faith or collusion; ongoing relationship with medical provider insufficient to show bias
Who bears burden to seek DOT review under § 391.47	Williams argued employer should have initiated DOT review	J.B. Hunt argued the driver (who bears burden to prove qualification) must seek DOT resolution	Court: The driver must seek DOT resolution; Williams failed to do so

Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1999) (Congress intended ADA to yield to applicable federal safety standards)
Harris v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc., 339 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2003) (driver who lacked DOT certification and did not seek § 391.47 review could not prove he was "qualified" under ADA)
Bay v. Cassens Transp. Co., 212 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2000) (employer may rely on lack of DOT certification until a dispute under § 391.47 is resolved in employee’s favor)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: party with burden must present evidence for essential elements)