Robert Palmer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
139 F.4th 970
| 8th Cir. | 2025Background
- Robert L. Palmer, a long-time employee of Union Pacific, disclosed his diabetes when hired and later developed diabetic retinopathy, impacting his vision.
- In February 2014, Palmer was placed on permanent work restrictions following a fitness-for-duty evaluation, rendering him ineligible for his position.
- Palmer submitted medical evidence of improved vision in May 2014, and in December 2014, Union Pacific reaffirmed the permanent restrictions, refusing to consider further medical updates.
- A class action alleging discriminatory use of fitness-for-duty evaluations—Harris v. Union Pac. R.R.—was filed in February 2016. The class covered those subject to such evaluations from September 18, 2014, onward.
- The class was decertified in 2020, after which Palmer filed an individual charge with the EEOC and, later, the present lawsuit raising ADA claims.
- The district court dismissed Palmer’s claims as time-barred, reasoning that the only adverse action occurred in February 2014, before the class period, and denied Palmer’s motion to reconsider or amend.
Issues
| Issue | Palmer's Argument | Union Pacific's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Palmer's ADA claim was | Palmer claims the December 2014 letter was a separate adverse action, qualifying him | Only the February 2014 letter was an adverse action; December 2014 was | December 2014 letter plausibly alleged as a separate adverse |
| timely as within the class period | for class membership and tolling. | merely a confirmation/consequence; thus, the claim is untimely. | action; dismissal reversed and case remanded. |
| Whether denial of leave to amend | Palmer asserts his proposed amended complaint states a valid, timely discrimination | Amendment futile since no actionable conduct within class period alleged. | Denial was error; leave to amend should be granted under new |
| was appropriate | claim related to the December 2014 action. | Supreme Court standard. | |
| What constitutes an adverse | Palmer argues the December 2014 letter imposed new harm by foreclosing future review. | The 2014 letters were part of a single, continuous employment action. | Post-Muldrow, even "some harm" suffices; December 2014 qualifies. |
| employment action (post-Muldrow) | |||
| Applicable legal standard for ADA | Palmer contends new Supreme Court precedent (Muldrow) applies retroactively. | No argument directly stated against retroactivity. | Muldrow applies retroactively; new standard governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (class action tolling suspends statute of limitations for putative members)
- Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024) (defines adverse employment action as any action causing "some harm" to terms or conditions of employment)
- Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Tax’n, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) (new Supreme Court interpretations apply retroactively to cases still open on direct review)
- Harris v. Union Pac. R.R., 953 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2020) (decertified the ADA class at issue)
- Cole v. Grp. Health Plan, Inc., 105 F.4th 1110 (8th Cir. 2024) (Eighth Circuit application of Muldrow standard)