A Union Pacific Railroad Co. conductor vying to bring his service dog to work to help with post-traumatic stress disorder related to his military service will try to convince a federal appeals court that he's protected under federal disability law.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is set to hear oral argument Tuesday in a case that could clarify whether the Americans with Disabilities Act only requires that employers provide accommodations needed to perform a job's essential functions.
The Eighth Circuit's decision will apply to employers in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, but could also influence other courts.
The conductor, Perry Hopman, is attempting to reinstate a $250,000 jury award against Union Pacific for violating the ADA. An Arkansas district court vacated the award last year after finding that his accommodation request isn't the kind of privilege or benefit of employment the law requires.
The ADA's legislative history also doesn't support recognizing a PTSD service dog for workers regardless of their disability, the trial court found. Hopman admitted he can do his job without bringing his rottweiler Atlas in the train cab with him to help with flashbacks and migraine headaches, it added.
Hopman pointed to the Tenth Circuit's 2012 decision in Sanchez v. Vilsack and the Sixth Circuit's 2015 Gleed v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC decision to support his claim that his accommodation request was reasonable. But the district court found the facts in those cases distinguishable.
Accommodation Extent
Hopman, a former US Army flight medic who served in Iraq in 2008 and Kosovo in 2010, accused the district court of misstating the nature of his accommodation request. He never demanded a "right to work without mental or psychological pain," as the district court claimed, Hopman said in his appellate brief.
Instead, he's simply "trying to manage the worst symptoms of his disabilities while at work," he said.
Case law suggests that the "ADA must be construed broadly consistent with its purpose—to ensure that workers with disabilities have equal employment opportunities" as employees who aren't living with disabilities, he said.
But having a service dog aboard a train would be unsafe and inconsistent with federal safety regulations, the railroad said in its response brief.
"Union Pacific offered Hopman an alternative position—a yard job—where he could bring Atlas without violating federal safety law. Hopman took that job for a time but eventually sued" to force the company to let him bring Atlas aboard the freight trains, the filing said.
If the appeals court accepts Hopman's reading of the ADA, employers would be forced to provide workplace accommodations employees don't necessarily need, including those that contravene other federal laws or regulations, the company argued.
The Association of American Railroads and the US Chamber of Commerce filed amicus briefs in support of Union Pacific.
Robynn Tysver, a spokesperson for the railroad, told Bloomberg Law in a statement that the company "has a proud history of recruiting and employing military veterans. About 20 percent of our workforce are veterans. In this case, we attempted to accommodate this person's needs without jeopardizing the safety of our employees and the public."
Counsel for Hopman didn't immediately reply to a request for comment.
Marek, Griffin & Knaupp; Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC; and Butler & Harris represent Hopman. Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP represent Union Pacific.
The case is Hopman v. Union Pacific R.R., 8th Cir., No. 22-01881, oral argument 1/10/23.
To contact the reporter on this story: Khorri Atkinson in Washington at katkinson@bloombergindustry.com
news.bloomberglaw.com
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is set to hear oral argument Tuesday in a case that could clarify whether the Americans with Disabilities Act only requires that employers provide accommodations needed to perform a job's essential functions.
The Eighth Circuit's decision will apply to employers in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, but could also influence other courts.
The conductor, Perry Hopman, is attempting to reinstate a $250,000 jury award against Union Pacific for violating the ADA. An Arkansas district court vacated the award last year after finding that his accommodation request isn't the kind of privilege or benefit of employment the law requires.
The ADA's legislative history also doesn't support recognizing a PTSD service dog for workers regardless of their disability, the trial court found. Hopman admitted he can do his job without bringing his rottweiler Atlas in the train cab with him to help with flashbacks and migraine headaches, it added.
Hopman pointed to the Tenth Circuit's 2012 decision in Sanchez v. Vilsack and the Sixth Circuit's 2015 Gleed v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC decision to support his claim that his accommodation request was reasonable. But the district court found the facts in those cases distinguishable.
Accommodation Extent
Hopman, a former US Army flight medic who served in Iraq in 2008 and Kosovo in 2010, accused the district court of misstating the nature of his accommodation request. He never demanded a "right to work without mental or psychological pain," as the district court claimed, Hopman said in his appellate brief.
Instead, he's simply "trying to manage the worst symptoms of his disabilities while at work," he said.
Case law suggests that the "ADA must be construed broadly consistent with its purpose—to ensure that workers with disabilities have equal employment opportunities" as employees who aren't living with disabilities, he said.
But having a service dog aboard a train would be unsafe and inconsistent with federal safety regulations, the railroad said in its response brief.
"Union Pacific offered Hopman an alternative position—a yard job—where he could bring Atlas without violating federal safety law. Hopman took that job for a time but eventually sued" to force the company to let him bring Atlas aboard the freight trains, the filing said.
If the appeals court accepts Hopman's reading of the ADA, employers would be forced to provide workplace accommodations employees don't necessarily need, including those that contravene other federal laws or regulations, the company argued.
The Association of American Railroads and the US Chamber of Commerce filed amicus briefs in support of Union Pacific.
Robynn Tysver, a spokesperson for the railroad, told Bloomberg Law in a statement that the company "has a proud history of recruiting and employing military veterans. About 20 percent of our workforce are veterans. In this case, we attempted to accommodate this person's needs without jeopardizing the safety of our employees and the public."
Counsel for Hopman didn't immediately reply to a request for comment.
Marek, Griffin & Knaupp; Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC; and Butler & Harris represent Hopman. Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP represent Union Pacific.
The case is Hopman v. Union Pacific R.R., 8th Cir., No. 22-01881, oral argument 1/10/23.
To contact the reporter on this story: Khorri Atkinson in Washington at katkinson@bloombergindustry.com
Conductor’s Service Dog Case Sets Up ADA Accommodations Battle
A Union Pacific Railroad Co. conductor vying to bring his service dog to work to help with post-traumatic stress disorder related to his military service will try to convince a federal appeals court that he’s protected under federal disability law.
