Skip to Content
In an article published on August 18 in Law360, Segal McCambridge Senior Associate Masood Ali discusses how two recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions in Palmer v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. and Hess v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. offer critical guidance for employers navigating compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Ali shows how the rulings shift fitness-for-duty (FFD) testing policies and statute of limitations considerations, as well as the interplay of the Muldrow standard from the Supreme Court’s decision last year.
“Employers must avoid one-size-fits-all testing policies, engage in individualized assessments, and remain vigilant about procedural developments that may impact liability,” Ali writes. “For class actions in particular, employers should try their best to define claims and class member definitions in a precise manner.”
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted that Hess and Palmer’s claims were tolled as putative members of the class in the various Union Pacific lawsuits as they were timely when filed individually. Employers must also be mindful of the limited circumstances in which they can require FFD tests or medical exams.
“Another takeaway is to understand the limits of medical inquiries and individualized return-to-work assessments,” Ali notes. “Documentation and litigation stances must be consistent with internal policies for employers to address complex legal issues when they arise. For fair and effective workplace management, adhering to the ADA's requirements is a crucial component and a legal obligation.”
Read the story in full, click here (subscriber-based).
