McNeil v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 18-2333 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Union Pacific in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA).
In regard to plaintiff's discrimination claim, the court held that plaintiff was not qualified for a dispatcher position as a matter of law because she was unable to work mandatory overtime and Union Pacific's earlier willingness to accommodate a two-month restriction did not create a genuine issue of fact about whether availability for overtime was an essential function of the position. In regard to the sex and pregnancy discrimination claims, the court held that plaintiff suffered no adverse action when her supervisor denied her requested training or commented on the length of her breast pumping breaks, and the evidence did not give rise to an inference of discrimination in any event. In regard to the race discrimination claim, the court held that plaintiff's proffered comparators were not similarly situated because they were able to work overtime.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Employment Discrimination. District court's grant of summary judgment on claim of disability discrimination is affirmed, as the district court properly concluded McNeil was not qualified for the dispatcher position as a matter of law because she was unable to work mandatory overtime and there was insufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute about whether Union Pacific failed to engage in the interactive process. On claims of sex and pregnancy discrimination, McNeil did not suffer an adverse action when her supervisor denied her training or commented on her breast pumping break; and evidence did not show decisions were motivated by her sex or pregnancy. On race discrimination claim, her proffered comparators were not similarly situated, as they were able to work some overtime, while McNeil was not.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.