Monte Mills v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
1:22-cv-00143
D. IdahoJan 16, 2024Background
- Monte Mills, a former conductor for Union Pacific Railroad, sued the company after being denied recertification due to failing a color vision field test (the "Light Cannon"), despite previous recertifications after passing other field tests.
- Railroads are federally required to test conductors for color vision deficiencies but have discretion over the choice of follow-up tests after an initial failure.
- Mills alleged that Union Pacific’s use of the Light Cannon test constituted unlawful disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Both parties presented expert witnesses concerning the validity and job-relatedness of the Light Cannon test.
- Union Pacific moved to exclude Mills’ expert testimony, for summary judgment, and to strike portions of Mills' evidence; Mills sought to exclude Union Pacific’s expert and introduce a supplemental authority.
- The decision was on pre-trial motions, notably summary judgment and evidentiary/expert challenges, not a trial verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Union Pacific’s Expert (Fender) | Fender’s testimony is irrelevant and unreliable (lacks medical/scientific basis) | Fender’s regulatory/safety expertise makes testimony reliable and relevant | DENIED – Testimony is admissible as relevant and reliable but not dispositive |
| Summary Judgment (Timeliness of Claim) | Did not receive EEOC right-to-sue letter; claim is not time-barred | Mills received right-to-sue letter; action is untimely | DENIED – Factual dispute; Union Pacific failed to prove mailing of notice |
| Summary Judgment (Qualified Individual under ADA) | Mills is qualified based on work history and previous safe job performance | Failure of Light Cannon shows Mills isn’t qualified under federal standards | DENIED – Jury could find Mills qualified; issue of fact remains |
| Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Experts | Experts’ opinions are based on facts and their expertise, not mere hearsay | Opinions are speculative, founded on another’s study, no personal knowledge | DENIED – Testimony has a sufficient factual basis, meets admissibility standards |
| Notice of Supplemental Authority | EEOC complaint against Union Pacific is relevant and should be considered | Mere complaint filing is not legal authority | SUSTAINED – Complaint is not supplemental authority; notice stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (admissibility standards for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (trial courts’ gatekeeping role applies to all expert testimony)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (disparate treatment and disparate impact under ADA)
- Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (employer’s reliance on federal safety standards and ADA defense)
- Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080 (elements of disparate treatment claim under ADA)
- Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076 (sham affidavit rule in summary judgment)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (ADA business necessity and job-relatedness)