Can your employer legally remove you from your job because of disability discrimination by claiming you are a safety risk—even when your own doctors clear you? The answer, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Baldwin v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 24-3135, 2025 WL 2179316 (8th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), is: yes, but only under narrow conditions. Disability discrimination laws under Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) still apply, but employers can invoke the “direct threat” defense if they prove you pose a significant and unmitigable safety risk. In John Baldwin’s case, a jury found that Union Pacific perceived him as disabled—but still sided with the employer because they believed he was a direct threat. This blog unpacks how that happened and what employees facing employment discrimination or wrongful termination should learn from it.
What Rights Do Employees Have Under the ADA?
The ADA is a federal law that protects employees with physical or mental impairments that substantially limit major life activities. It prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, promotions, training, and job assignments. The ADA also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations that would enable an employee to perform the essential functions of the job—unless doing so would create an undue hardship or pose a direct threat to health or safety.
Best Disability Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Do Employers Violate ADA By Delaying Accommodation Process? What Disabled Workers Need To Know
- ADA Rights: Temporary Injuries And Disability Accommodations
- Be Careful What You Ask For: How A Wrong ADA Accommodation Request Can Backfire
What Does It Mean to Be a “Direct Threat” Under the ADA?
Under the ADA, a “direct threat” means “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” Employers cannot rely on gut feelings or vague concerns—they must perform an “individualized assessment” using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.
In Baldwin’s case, he had previously undergone double hip replacement surgery and managed recurring bursitis. On a hot day in June 2016, his supervisor noticed him limping and reported it, suspecting heatstroke. Even after Baldwin declined a fitness evaluation, Union Pacific initiated one, removing him from duty. Although multiple doctors—including Baldwin’s orthopedic surgeon and two examining physicians—cleared him for work, Union Pacific’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. John Holland, remained concerned.
Dr. Holland based his opinion on Baldwin’s performance in a treadmill test known as an Exercise Tolerance Test (ETT), which measures aerobic capacity in metabolic equivalents, or METs. A MET is a unit representing the amount of oxygen consumed while at rest. The higher the MET score, the more exertion a person can tolerate. Union Pacific required a score of 10 METs for employees in safety-sensitive positions. Baldwin scored 7.0 in the first test and 8.1 in the second.
Why does this matter? Because Baldwin’s job inspecting locomotives required him to work around heavy equipment, moving trains, unprotected heights, and in high-heat environments. If he became incapacitated—even briefly—it could result in serious injury or death to himself or others. That risk, according to Union Pacific, was too great.
Despite Baldwin’s expert, Dr. Kevin Trangle, testifying that the MET scores alone did not justify exclusion, the jury concluded that Union Pacific’s decision was justified. This was not a decision of law—it was a question of fact decided by the jury after hearing conflicting medical opinions. And juries, as any trial lawyer will tell you, can be unpredictable. Even when the law may lean one way, the facts and how they are presented often control the outcome.
Best Wrongful Termination Attorney Blogs on Point:
- Can My Job Deny ADA Accommodations By Claiming “Direct Threat”?
- Wrongfully Fired For FMLA Use Or ADA Violation? You Have Rights
- Be Clear And Direct In Requesting ADA Work Accommodations
Can My Employer Ignore My Doctor and Use Their Own Doctor?
It is a frustrating situation that many employees face. You are cleared by your treating physician, maybe even by specialists. Yet your employer brings in their own doctors and decides you are unfit for duty. That was Baldwin’s reality.
Baldwin’s orthopedic surgeon and a third-party specialist both said he could return without restrictions. Even a physical therapist found he was capable of performing “heavy work.” But Dr. Holland fixated on the MET scores and Baldwin’s elevated blood pressure and obesity. Union Pacific treated these as warning signs, imposing temporary work restrictions that eventually became permanent. Despite updated ETT results and a favorable report from an occupational medicine specialist, Union Pacific refused to lift the restrictions.
Dr. Holland, supported by cardiologist Dr. Brian Lowes, concluded Baldwin’s aerobic capacity was still too low for the demands of the job. And while Dr. Lowes acknowledged Baldwin’s risk of sudden incapacitation was “likely not significantly elevated,” he nonetheless recommended only sedentary work in a climate-controlled setting. That assessment proved persuasive to the jury.
Best ADA Failure to Accommodate Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- Who Decides Scope Of ADA Accommodations? Doctors
- How Do I Plead A Disability Under The ADA?
- ADA What Happens When Both Employer, Employee Fail Interactive Process?
Can an Employer Use “Direct Threat” to Justify Disability Discrimination?
That is the danger. The “direct threat” defense under the ADA gives employers a narrow but powerful tool. They carry the burden to prove the threat is real, significant, and not eliminable through accommodations. But that burden is tested before a jury—and the jury decides what is reasonable.
Baldwin’s case is a prime example. The jury found that Union Pacific discriminated against him based on a perceived disability. But they also found that the employer met its burden under the direct threat standard.
The Eighth Circuit held that “To establish the [direct threat] defense, Union Pacific was required to show that its determination that Sanders posed a direct threat was: (1) the result of an individualized assessment, (2) objectively reasonable, and (3) based on the ‘most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.’” Baldwin, 2025 WL 2179316, at *4 (citing Sanders v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 108 F.4th 1055, 1062 (8th Cir. 2024)).
Although the court acknowledged that the jury instructions were missing some details—like whether the risk could be “eliminated or reduced”—it found that the error did not affect the outcome. Why? Because both sides presented their case, and the jury decided. It could have gone the other way. That is why any employee facing disability discrimination needs to consult an experienced employment law attorney early—and document everything.
Best Employee’s Rights Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- ADA Does Not Require Perfect Accommodation Be Given
- ADA Accommodations: What Info Do I Need To Give My Job?
Can Employers Rely on Their Own Medical Standards to Fire Workers?
Yes—but only within limits. Courts will look at whether the employer’s standards are objective, consistent, and based on reliable medical literature.
Union Pacific had a 10-MET standard for safety-sensitive jobs. Even when outside doctors disagreed, and even when an arbitrator recommended further evaluation, the company stuck to its protocol. The jury believed they were acting out of concern for safety, not animus toward Baldwin’s disability.
To avoid second-guessing employer discretion, the jury received a “business judgment” instruction. It said they could not find in Baldwin’s favor simply because they disagreed with Union Pacific’s decision. The Eighth Circuit upheld this instruction, noting that “objective reasonableness,” not fairness or kindness, is the standard under the ADA. Baldwin, 2025 WL 2179316, at *5.
This underscores how important it is for employees to push back early and with the help of a skilled lawyer. Once the jury is in the box, facts—not just fairness—rule the day.
How Do I Find the Best Attorney for Workplace Discrimination?
“How do I find the best attorney near me for wrongful termination or disability discrimination?”
This is the type of question employees often type into Google when their employer has just kicked them to the curb. You want answers. You want experience. You want someone who will fight for you.
That is why you should call Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm. We are one of the largest law firms in the United States dedicated solely to employee rights. That means we have more resources than other firms to take on big employers and win. We offer a free initial consultation and a no-fee guarantee—if we do not recover for you, you owe us nothing. Our employment law attorneys have decades of trial experience and a history of getting real results for workers who have been wrongfully fired, harassed, or discriminated against.
But we are not just about winning. We care. We know what it feels like to be silenced, sidelined, or pushed out because of a disability or other protected trait. We listen. We believe you. Then we go to work.
So if you are dealing with a wrongful termination, perceived disability discrimination, or any employment law violation, do not wait. Document everything. Then call the best. Call Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm today.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer: This disability discrimination blog provides general information about employee ADA rights, workplace discrimination, and employment law. It should not be taken as legal advice about your disability or employment situation. If you believe you have been wrongfully fired, subject to retaliation, or experienced employment discrimination, you should consult with a qualified employment lawyer to get advice specific to your situation. No promises or guarantees are being made by this blog. This is a legal advertisement.