Kris Arthur v. BNSF Railway Company
697 F. App'x 826
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kris Arthur, an experienced telephone technician/lineman, received a conditional offer for BNSF Assistant Signalperson, a heavy-labor role, contingent on medical/physical testing.
- Arthur initially failed, then passed a physical-capability test; she completed a medical exam and submitted records showing prior neck/arm pain, surgery (2005), and intermittent symptoms through early 2006.
- BNSF’s medical reviewer, Dr. Michael Jarrard, concluded Arthur was "not currently medically qualified" for the Assistant Signalperson job due to risk from her right-arm/cervical condition, and said she could be reconsidered if symptom-free for six months; he suggested she "may be qualified" for lighter positions (dispatcher, yardmaster).
- Arthur provided notes from her surgeon and physical therapist asserting she had been pain-free since March 2006; BNSF did not reverse its decision.
- Arthur sued under the ADA, claiming BNSF "regarded" her as disabled (substantially limited in lifting, reaching, and working). The district court granted summary judgment for BNSF; the Fifth Circuit majority affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BNSF regarded Arthur as substantially limited in lifting/reaching | Arthur: BNSF’s suggestion she could do only light jobs shows it regarded her as limited in lifting/reaching | BNSF: Any limitation was temporary (six-month reevaluation); not a substantial, long-term restriction | No genuine fact issue; limitation deemed temporary, not an ADA "disability" |
| Whether BNSF regarded Arthur as substantially limited in working (broad class of jobs) | Arthur: BNSF’s referral to light-duty jobs and Jarrard’s testimony imply she was excluded from medium/heavy classes of jobs | BNSF: Jarrard evaluated only the assistant signalperson position; suggestions about other jobs were non-binding and speculative | No genuine fact issue; disqualification limited to one position pending reevaluation, not exclusion from a class of jobs |
| Sufficiency of medical evidence to show employer "regarded as" disabled | Arthur: Medical notes and post-op records show recurring symptoms and physician notes supporting possible chronicity | BNSF: Medical record supported risk assessment and temporary restriction; reevaluation condition reasonable | Court credited BNSF’s medical-qualification determination as not showing a perceived substantial, long-term impairment |
| Proper standard for "regarded as" showing on summary judgment | Arthur: Employer perceptions about job class restrictions can create factual disputes | BNSF: Decision limited and based on job-specific safety concerns; no broad perception shown | Majority: No material dispute remains; summary judgment affirmed (partial dissent argued "working" issue should survive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (defining "regarded as" disability standard)
- Kemp v. Holder, 610 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2010) (analysis of perceived inability to perform a class of jobs)
- EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., LP, 570 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2009) (duration/impact guidance on what constitutes a disability)
- Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 1112 (5th Cir. 1998) (restriction on heavy lifting alone insufficient to show substantial limitation)
- Ray v. Glidden Co., 85 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 1996) (limits on heavy lifting do not establish a disability)
- Dupre v. Charter Behavioral Health Sys. of Lafayette, Inc., 242 F.3d 610 (5th Cir. 2001) (factors for substantiality and duration assessment)