Perry Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad, No. 22-1881 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff, then a conductor and now an engineer for Union Pacific Railroad (“Union Pacific”), brought this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when Union Pacific refused Plaintiff’s requests that he be allowed to bring his Rottweiler service dog on board moving Union Pacific freight trains as a reasonable accommodation to ameliorate the effects of Plaintiff’s undisputed disabilities, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and migraine headaches resulting from his prior service in the military. At the end of a week-long trial, the district court denied Union Pacific’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The jury then returned a verdict for Plaintiff, awarding compensatory but not punitive damages. The district court granted Union Pacific’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court agreed that “benefits and privileges of employment” (1) refer only to employer-provided services; (2) must be offered to non-disabled individuals in addition to disabled ones; and (3) does not include freedom from mental or psychological pain. Further, the court noted that mitigating pain is not an employer-sponsored program or service. As such, providing a service dog at work so that an employee with a disability has the same assistance the service dog provides away from work is not a cognizable benefit or privilege of employment.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff, then a conductor and now an engineer, brought this action after his request to bring his Rottweiler service dog on board moving trains as an accommodation for his PTSD and migraines was denied. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, awarding compensatory damages, but not punitive damages. The district court then granted defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict. Plaintiff appeals. At trial, plaintiff limited his failure-to-accommodate claim to one section of the applicable EEOC regulation - adjustments needed to permit him, an employee with a disability, to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by similarly situation employees without disabilities; thus, whether plaintiff may have had a job performance claim is not before the court; the benefits and privileges of employment do not include the freedom to be free from mental or psychological pain; as a result, permitting a service dog at work so that an employee with a disability has the same mental health assistance the service dog provides away from work is not a cognizable benefit or privilege of employment, and the district court did not err in granting defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
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.