His own doctors said he was fit to work - so how did the railroad keep him sidelined
A federal appeals court sided with Union Pacific this week, ruling the railroad lawfully kept a conductor off the job after his stroke.
The decision, filed August 11, 2026, by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, matters for any employer that uses fitness-for-duty reviews to manage safety-sensitive roles. It shows how much weight courts give an employer's medical judgment.
The worker had spent more than ten years as a conductor, operating and moving trains. In January 2015 he suffered a stroke at home while off duty. He recovered quickly; within four days most of his symptoms were gone. His treating neurologist cleared him to return by the end of February.
Union Pacific was not convinced. Because the job was safety-sensitive, the railroad's health and medical services department ordered a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Its chief medical officer first imposed one-year restrictions that barred the conductor from operating machinery or working near moving trains. Later, a company physician extended those limits to five years, concluding the worker had "an unacceptable risk for future seizure" tied to his stroke and a brain bleed he suffered during treatment.
The restrictions held even though the worker's own doctors said he was fit. He asked for a review in 2018; the company found "no basis" to lift the limits. He said he tried again in 2020. He never returned to the job and eventually neared retirement.
In 2023 he sued, claiming disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Union Pacific moved for summary judgment, leaning on the ADA's "direct threat" defense - the rule that lets an employer restrict a worker who poses a significant safety risk no accommodation can fix.
Both courts sided with the railroad. To use the defense, an employer must show its call was based on an individualized assessment, was objectively reasonable, and rested on the best available medical evidence. Union Pacific had run multiple evaluations, reviewed the medical records the worker supplied, and leaned on federal safety guidance for commercial drivers.
The worker's strongest argument was simple: his own physicians said he could work. The court was unmoved. A disagreement among doctors, it held, does not make an employer's decision unreasonable. The law asks only that the employer rely on an "objectively reasonable" opinion, "rather than an opinion that is correct."
That distinction matters for HR. An employer can be cautious, even wrong about the risk, and still prevail - so long as the process behind the call was thorough and grounded in current evidence.
The court affirmed summary judgment for Union Pacific.
