David Meza v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Omaha, Nebraska personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a Americans with Disabilities Act violation claim.



David Meza had worked for Union Pacific for over twenty years when he had a serious non-job-related motorcycle accident. It required him to spend several days in the hospital recovering from a brain hemorrhage. Fortunately for him, his treating physicians thought his brain injury would not have lasting effects. One, a radiologist, determined from an MRI that "no specific or acute intracranial abnormality” existed and only "a small amount of fluid in the left mastoid air cells” remained. From there, his neurologist cleared him to return to his regular work and life activities. In his view, Meza had made a "full recovery,” at least with respect to his "dizziness, vertigo, and skull fracture.”



Union Pacific was not as sure Meza was ready to return. Its medical examiner feared that his brain injury could cause unpredictable seizures—a conclusion consistent with medical guidelines from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Presumably concerned about the danger of an on-the-job seizure with heavy machinery around, the examiner recommended restricting Meza's work activities for five years. Unfortunately, the restrictions ruled out a return to his old position, which left him searching for another job in the meantime.



Meza sued for discrimination. His theory was that Union Pacific suspended him because it "regarded [him] as having [a] . . . physical or mental impairment,” a type of disability discrimination. Id. § 12102(3)(A); see id. § 12102(1)(C). Given

the length of the suspension, he believed that Union Pacific treated him differently because of a perceived disability, rather than out of any risk to himself or others. He-3- eventually returned to Union Pacific, but requests back pay for the five years he missed. See id. § 12112(a).

Meza’s claim did not survive summary judgment. The district court

concluded that Union Pacific had not “regarded” him as currently disabled. Id.

§ 12102(1)(C). Rather, it had placed restrictions on him out of concern about how

the injury would affect him in the future. Meza believes Union Pacific illegally

discriminated against him either way.



Reversed