931 F.3d 664
8th Cir.2019Background
- Jon Higgins, a Union Pacific locomotive engineer with chronic back pain, had a 1992 settlement with Union Pacific that permitted him to "lay off whenever his back bothered him." Union Pacific periodically accommodated his absences.
- Union Pacific's job description and Attendance Policy designate regular, reliable attendance as an essential function for locomotive engineers and warn that excessive lay-offs may lead to discipline.
- From 2004–2014 Higgins repeatedly appeared on attendance reports for high lay-off rates (e.g., ~24% of calls in 2012–13; 26% of calls May–Aug 2014), prompting counseling, warning letters, and an investigation.
- Following an occupational stress report, Union Pacific required a fitness-for-duty (FFD) evaluation; physicians recommended 24 hours off between shifts and permitting lay-offs per the 1999 agreement. Higgins did not correct an ambiguity in his physician’s statement clarifying whether the 24-hour rest was "occasional."
- Union Pacific concluded that a permanent restriction of 24 hours between every shift (or unlimited lay-offs) would interfere with essential job functions and could not be reasonably accommodated; Higgins was not allowed to return to work after 2014. He sued under the ADA for disparate treatment and failure to accommodate; the district court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether regular attendance is an essential function of a Union Pacific locomotive engineer | Higgins: prior accommodations and settlement show attendance is not essential for him | Union Pacific: written job description, attendance policy, warnings, and job realities show attendance is essential | Attendance is an essential function of the job |
| Whether Higgins is qualified to perform essential functions with a reasonable accommodation | Higgins: requested accommodation (lay off as needed; 24 hours rest between shifts) would allow him to perform | Union Pacific: requested accommodation would impose an unlimited-absence policy and reassign other engineers; not reasonable | Requested accommodation is not reasonable; Higgins cannot perform essential functions with accommodation |
| Whether prior accommodation (1992 settlement) alters essential-function or reasonableness analysis | Higgins: settlement granting lay-offs shows employer conceded attendance non-essential or must allow ongoing lay-offs | Union Pacific: prior accommodation was limited and voluntary and does not change essential-function or reasonableness analysis | Prior accommodation does not negate that attendance is essential or render an unlimited accommodation reasonable |
| Whether a permanent 24-hour rest between all shifts is a reasonable accommodation | Higgins: 24-hour rest (occasional, per his view) is medically necessary and reasonable | Union Pacific: almost 90% of calls require <24 hours’ rest; requiring 24 hours between every shift is infeasible and would create unlimited absences | Permanent 24-hour rest between all shifts (or uncontingent lay-offs) is unreasonable as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (establishing burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Kammueller v. Loomis, Fargo & Co., 383 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2004) (factors for determining essential job functions)
- Lipp v. Cargill Meat Sols. Corp., 911 F.3d 537 (8th Cir. 2018) (regular, reliable attendance is necessary for most jobs; plaintiff must show reasonable accommodation allows performance)
- Pickens v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 264 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2001) (railroad’s scheduling flexibility does not negate attendance as essential for full-time jobs)
- Buckles v. First Data Res., Inc., 176 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 1999) (detailed attendance policies support that attendance is essential; unfettered leave is unreasonable)
- Rehrs v. Iams Co., 486 F.3d 353 (8th Cir. 2007) (employer’s temporary or voluntary accommodations do not concede that a function is nonessential)
- Knutson v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., 711 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2013) (an accommodation is unreasonable if it requires reassigning other workers to cover essential duties)
- Faidley v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 889 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2018) (employer’s prior generosity does not bind it to accommodate far-reaching requests)