Perry Hopman plays with his service dog, Atlas, outside his home in Benton on Friday, Sept. 4, 2020. Atlas is trained to help Perry ward off panic attacks, anxiety, and flashbacks on the job as a result of his PTSD while serving as a U.S. Army flight medic. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette / Stephen Swofford)
A Saline County man who was awarded the right to take his service dog with him on his job as a railroad engineer after a jury trial last year suffered a setback Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker reversed the jury's verdict and dismissed his case.
Perry Hopman, 45, of Benton, a former combat medic who served in Iraq in 2008 and Kosovo in 2010, won his case against Union Pacific Railroad in July after a federal jury unanimously concluded the company must allow the Army veteran to bring the dog, a 125-pound Rottweiler named Atlas, to work to help him deal with ongoing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and a traumatic brain injury.
The jury also awarded Hopman $250,000 in damages, which was also set aside.
In issuing the ruling, Baker granted a motion by Union Pacific for judgment as a matter of law in which the rail company said despite the jury's verdict, federal law governing railroad safety prohibits placing anything on the floor of a locomotive that would impede movement or present a trip hazard. Union Pacific also asserted in its motion that Hopman had failed at trial to present any evidence of a cognizable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act.
In her order, Baker said Hopman's complaint did not say he needed to have Atlas with him to perform his job but instead contended he should be able to work without mental or psychological pain.
"Mr. Hopman steadfastly maintains his ability to perform the essential functions of his job and is specifically seeking solely an accommodation of a benefit and privilege of employment," Baker said in her order.
Baker went on to say Hopman had failed to provide evidence to show a court has ruled that employees have the right to work without mental or psychological pain and that case law in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals suggests employees do not have that right. She also said Hopman had not established that Union Pacific offers similarly situated non-disabled employees the benefit of working without mental or psychological pain.
She pointed out that Hopman's own testimony at trial indicated he is able to perform the essential functions of his job without accommodation, and that he requested the accommodation to ease his PTSD symptoms and anxiety while at work.
Hopman filed suit in federal court in 2018, after officials with Union Pacific Railroad refused his requests in 2015 and 2017 that his service dog be allowed to accompany him to work at the North Little Rock rail yard, where he is an engineer on overnight runs to Crawford County.
Hopman was diagnosed with PTSD in 2008 after an 18-month tour in Iraq. he is a survivor of a traumatic brain injury that occurred during a 2010 deployment to Kosovo that resulted from a 50-foot fall out of a helicopter.
Hopman testified during the trial that he suffers flashbacks, depression and anxiety from his wartime experiences as well as debilitating migraine headaches resulting from the brain injury. He told jurors Atlas has been trained to ground him by sitting on his feet, to remind him to take his medications, to sense the onset of migraines long before Hopman -- thus enabling Hopman to take his migraine medication in time to avoid the most debilitating symptoms -- and to place a buffer between Hopman and other people when needed by circling him.
Union Pacific argued during the trial that Hopman's safety and performance records amply demonstrated he could perform his duties without the dog at his side and that the presence of the dog would constitute a safety hazard.
John Griffin of Victoria, Texas, one of Hopman's attorneys in the case, said he was disappointed in Baker's ruling and said the order will be appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"If the 8th Circuit agrees that the jury was on solid ground, then the jury's verdict will just be reinstated and that will be the end of the case," Griffin said. "We won't have to go back to square one."
Should the 8th Circuit rule against Hopman, Griffin said that decision would have far-reaching consequences, especially for military veterans.
"It would be a great disappointment on the part of millions of people," he said. "It will mean that veterans who come back with war injuries will have no right to accommodation when they have traumatic brain injuries or the kinds of injuries that Perry has."
Griffin said if people with PTSD or traumatic brain injuries don't have the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it would force them to work while suffering unnecessary distress.
"A Little Rock jury heard the evidence here and decided that an accommodation was reasonable and would alleviate the pain and suffering that he experiences because of his war injuries," he said. "Unfortunately, the judge felt that the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act were both very weak and very narrow."
Griffin said the hope is the 8th Circuit will restore the jury verdict to ensure Hopman and other war veterans with similar injuries will be able to depend on accommodations for their disabilities.
"Now I know, nobody is entitled to a stress-free workday, that's not how it works," he said. "But our veterans should not be made second-class citizens by forcing them to endure unnecessary pain and suffering while at work, and that's the effect of this ruling."
