Case Explained: Ross Christensen v. Union Pacific Railroad Co

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Union Pacific Railroad Co. on Ross Christensen’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) disparate treatment claim. The court held that Union Pacific successfully established its “direct threat” affirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 12113(b). To prevail on this defense, an employer must prove that the employee poses a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation, based on an individualized assessment that is objectively reasonable and grounded in the most current medical knowledge or best available objective evidence. The court applied the four-factor test from *EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*, considering the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of potential harm, the likelihood of occurrence, and the imminence of the harm. The court found that Union Pacific satisfied all three prongs of the direct threat analysis. First, the employer conducted an individualized assessment through multiple fitness-for-duty evaluations and a comprehensive review of Christensen’s medical records. Second, the decision was objectively reasonable because it relied on the opinions of Union Pacific’s physicians and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) guidelines regarding seizure risks after cortical strokes, even though Christensen’s personal doctors cleared him for work. The court ruled that mere disagreement among medical experts does not render an employer’s judgment objectively unreasonable. Third, the reliance on FMCSA guidelines constituted the “best available objective evidence,” as those guidelines were developed through a consensus of medical experts and characterized risks for safety-critical positions, despite their subsequent withdrawal by the FMCSA. Because no genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding any element of the direct threat defense, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of the employer. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.