Coffey v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 January 2022
• Docket Number: No. 21-1248,21-1248
• Citation: 23 F.4th 332
• Parties: Michael COFFEY, Jr., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant - Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

23 F.4th 332

Michael COFFEY, Jr., Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant - Appellee.

No. 21-1248

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: December 9, 2021

Decided: January 14, 2022

ARGUED: Nicholas Delton Thompson, CASEY JONES LAW, Appleton, Wisconsin, for Appellant. Brett Alexander Spain, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David A. Kushner, Bethany J. Fogerty, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Harris joined.

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge

Plaintiff Michael Coffey, a locomotive engineer for Norfolk Southern Railway Company, brought this suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to challenge the railroad's right to request certain medical records and discharge him for failure to comply. The district court found that the railroad made a lawful request under the ADA and granted summary judgment to Norfolk Southern. We now affirm.

I.

A.

Michael Coffey was employed by Norfolk Southern Railway Company from 1999 to 2017. As a locomotive engineer, he was responsible for operating the train, and he had to perform such tasks as responding to hazards on the railroad tracks to prevent collision or derailment. The position required him to walk across uneven tracks and climb steps to board and deboard the train multiple times per shift. Locomotive engineers are subject to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations regarding alcohol and drug use.

In 2012, a train that Coffey was operating derailed. Shortly thereafter, a drug test revealed the presence of amphetamines

in Coffey's system. Coffey was permitted to continue working, but he was subject to follow-up drug testing for five years. In April 2016, one of these drug tests showed the presence of amphetamines and codeine. Coffey explained that he had prescriptions for both medications: the amphetamines were Adderall, which he took for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and the codeine was Tylenol #3, which he took for a back condition.

In response, Norfolk Southern requested that Coffey provide certain records relating to his medication usage within thirty days. The letter stated that Coffey's treating physicians should address, among other things, Coffey's diagnoses, significant symptoms, medication regimen and compliance with that regimen, medication side effects, awareness of other medications prescribed by other doctors, ability to safely perform essential job functions, and recommended work restrictions or accommodations. According to Coffey, he asked his doctors to send the records and he believed they followed through. Norfolk Southern denies having received any records within the thirty-day time frame.

Six weeks later, in June 2016, Coffey ruptured his Achilles tendon

and took medical leave from Norfolk Southern. Norfolk Southern requested that when Coffey was ready to return to work, he provide medical information about his injury so that it could determine his fitness for service as an engineer. Coffey remained on medical leave from Norfolk Southern for approximately ten months, and in April 2017 his primary care physician cleared him to return to work. At that point, Norfolk Southern sent Coffey a follow-up letter seeking all the records it had previously requested regarding both his medication use and his injury. Coffey says that he repeatedly asked his doctors to provide the requested information to Norfolk Southern. Norfolk Southern repeatedly denied having received the records, and it sent two more letters demanding compliance within certain time frames. Coffey says that this became a recurring pattern where Norfolk Southern would demand records, Coffey would ask his doctor to send them, and Norfolk Southern would inform him that it had not received anything.

In June and July of 2017, Norfolk Southern eventually received certain records from Coffey. Those submissions included a two-sentence note from Coffey's treating physician clearing him to work without restrictions after the injury; the results from a functional capacity evaluation completed some months prior; a one-page note from one of Coffey's doctors verifying that he had a Tylenol

#3 prescription; and a one-page note from another of Coffey's doctors verifying that he had an Adderall prescription. However, Norfolk Southern was unsatisfied with the records it received, stating that they failed to include specifically requested information such as medication side effects or the physicians' knowledge of other prescriptions. It therefore notified Coffey that he would be subject to a disciplinary hearing to be held on September 7, 2017. For that hearing, Coffey submitted approximately four hundred pages of medical records. Upon determining that the records produced still did not address much of the required information, Norfolk Southern terminated Coffey's employment.

B.

Coffey appealed his termination to the Public Law Board, a federal arbitration tribunal. The Board found that Norfolk Southern had cause to terminate Coffey, but that he should be reinstated on the condition that he provide the missing records within thirty days. In response, Coffey resubmitted the same records as before, and Norfolk Southern did not reinstate him. Coffey then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that Norfolk Southern's demands had violated the ADA.

Coffey subsequently filed suit against Norfolk Southern in federal court under the ADA. He alleged that Norfolk Southern violated 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) by discriminating against him on the basis of disability and § 12112(d)(4)(A) by making improper medical requests and then terminating him for failure to comply. During discovery, Coffey offered the expert testimony of Dr. Kevin Trangle, who testified that Coffey's medications would not impair his functioning as a locomotive engineer and that Norfolk Southern's records requests were overbroad.

Norfolk Southern moved for summary judgment after discovery. The district court granted that motion, finding no genuine dispute of material fact as to either improper medical inquiries under § 12112(d)(4)(A) or discrimination under § 12112(a). As to the improper medical inquiry issue, the district court concluded that Norfolk Southern's records requests were permissible under the ADA because it had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Coffey could not properly carry out his duties and that he posed a safety risk. Coffey v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. , No. 2:19CV509, 2021 WL 879121, at *4, 7 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2021). It also noted that the requests were consistent with business necessity because Norfolk Southern was required by federal safety regulations to inquire into employees' use of controlled substances. Id. at *5–6. As to the discrimination claim, the district court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. It found that Coffey failed to make out a prima facie case because he did not show that he was disabled, id. at *8–9, nor did he provide evidence that Norfolk Southern's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating him were pretextual, id. at *12. Coffey now appeals the district court's determination that the medical inquiries were proper under the ADA.¹

We review awards of summary judgment de novo and apply the same legal standards as the district court.

Nguyen v. CNA Corp. , 44 F.3d 234, 236–37 (4th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment should be granted if there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. We draw all reasonable inferences and view the evidence in the light most favorable to Coffey. Porter v. U.S. Alumoweld Co. , 125 F.3d 243, 245 (4th Cir. 1997).

II.

When railroads emerged in this country nearly two hundred years ago, they brought with them great promise—but also real hazards. "[S]ince the beginning of railroad transportation," courts have recognized that railroads are "fraught with danger to the community." Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia , 234 U.S. 280, 291, 34 S.Ct. 829, 58 L.Ed. 1312 (1914). "Their operation requires the use of instruments and agencies attended with special risks and dangers, the proper management of which involves peculiar knowledge, training, skill, and care." Smith v. Alabama , 124 U.S. 465, 481–82, 8 S.Ct. 564, 31 L.Ed. 508 (1888). The costs of a misstep can be serious: loss of human life or property, toxic environmental damage, and the infinite litigation that follows in their wake. It is no coincidence that the term "train wreck" is used as a shorthand for mishaps of all sorts.

Accordingly, "[t]he safety of the public in person and property demands the use of specific guards and precautions" in railway operations. Id. For one, railroad operators are charged with a "very strict responsibility" of preventing damage. Shoemaker v. Kingsbury , 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 369, 377, 20 L.Ed. 432 (1870). The industry is also "regulated pervasively to ensure safety" by both the federal and state governments. Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n , 489 U.S. 602, 627, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) ; see also Atl. Coast Line R. Co. , 234 U.S. at 291, 34 S.Ct. 829.

Locomotive engineers in particular are "engaged in safety-sensitive tasks," for they "discharge duties fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences." Skinner , 489 U.S. at 620, 628, 109 S.Ct. 1402. For this reason, the Supreme Court has upheld against constitutional challenge FRA regulations requiring drug and alcohol testing of certain railroad employees, including engineers, whose impairment has the potential to "cause great human loss." Id. In doing so, the Court emphasized the great public interest in ensuring...