Trains.com

Trial set over UP engineer's request to bring service dog to work

7213 views
140 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:04 PM

Convicted One

 

 
Euclid
I am referring to a right to work under the conditions he has set forth. 

 

If I read the story correctly, the man returned from military service to his former position as conductor, and was subsequently promoted to engineer.

Only then did his PTSD become a factor in his ability to perform his duties.

Just speculating, but I don't believe that the employer would have difficulty establishing that the employee is no longer functioning in the capacity he was when they hired him. 

Conceivably, the stress of  becoming an engineer is a contributory factor,  that no one could forsee? Sometimes promotions are mistakes.

 

And if your contention is upheld,  once again a veteran is screwed. 

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:01 PM

Wait and see. Depends on the full scope of the lawsuit, which is not stated clearly. 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, September 13, 2020 2:35 PM

 

charlie hebdo
 
Euclid

 

 
zugmann

There would be another lawsuit and fast? 

 

 

 

As I understand it, he is suing for monetary damages as well as the right to bring the dog to work.  If U.P. loses the case, I am sure they will have to pay the damges and legal fees of the engineer.  But I don't see how they can be sued for refusing to employ the engineer.  In the article, the engineer mentions that he feels entitled to enjoy the right to work without discomfort.  I doubt that there is such a right. 

 

 

 

 

 

He is already employed, right?  If the court says UP must accommodate his disability,  they can't get around that by terminating him.  Not only could he sue again,  the government would charge UP with violations of the applicable labor and ADA provisions. 

And if the union has any value and teeth,  they will take action. 

 

Oh I would not be surprised if it costs U.P. a lot of money, but I doubt that they can be forced to let the engineer work with the service dog. 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Sunday, September 13, 2020 2:29 PM

Euclid
I am referring to a right to work under the conditions he has set forth. 

If I read the story correctly, the man returned from military service to his former position as conductor, and was subsequently promoted to engineer.

Only then did his PTSD become a factor in his ability to perform his duties.

Just speculating, but I don't believe that the employer would have difficulty establishing that the employee is no longer functioning in the capacity he was when they hired him. 

Conceivably, the stress of  becoming an engineer is a contributory factor,  that no one could forsee? Sometimes promotions are mistakes.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, September 13, 2020 2:06 PM

Euclid

 

 
zugmann

There would be another lawsuit and fast? 

 

 

 

As I understand it, he is suing for monetary damages as well as the right to bring the dog to work.  If U.P. loses the case, I am sure they will have to pay the damges and legal fees of the engineer.  But I don't see how they can be sued for refusing to employ the engineer.  In the article, the engineer mentions that he feels entitled to enjoy the right to work without discomfort.  I doubt that there is such a right. 

 

 

 

He is already employed, right?  If the court says UP must accommodate his disability,  they can't get around that by terminating him.  Not only could he sue again,  the government would charge UP with violations of the applicable labor and ADA provisions. 

And if the union has any value and teeth,  they will take action. 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Sunday, September 13, 2020 1:53 PM

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, September 13, 2020 1:20 PM

deleted

 

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, September 13, 2020 1:19 PM

Be careful walking through this thread.  It's full of slippery slopes today. 

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Sunday, September 13, 2020 1:09 PM

Euclid
But adding accessibility equipment to all locomotives is probably something that is on the mind of U.P. as they weigh their options in this service dog case.

Once the dike has cracked, expect the deluge.

Perhaps they can train seeing eye dogs to bark-off signal aspects too?

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, September 13, 2020 1:06 PM

Convicted One
 
Euclid
.  I doubt that there is such a right.     

 

 

Failure to fulfil a bonafide ADA requirement is considered to violate the disabled employees constitutional rights.

So, he will sue, and retire wealthy, if it comes to that.

 

I am referring to a right to work under the conditions he has set forth.  I don't think that right exists even as a dictate of the ADA.  But there may be a right to collect massive damages as a monetary settlement under ADA rights, as you say.  But I don't know any details about that.  But adding accessibility equipment to all locomotives is probably something that is on the mind of U.P. as they weigh their options in this service dog case.

 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Sunday, September 13, 2020 12:51 PM

But hey, you know? I've never seen a locomotive with a wheelchair ramp, either.

So this likely falls into an area where the employee is free to chose a vocation he is 'fit' for. Perhaps the railroad is not the best place for him?

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Sunday, September 13, 2020 12:29 PM

Euclid
.  I doubt that there is such a right.     

 

Failure to fulfil a bonafide ADA requirement is considered to violate the disabled employees constitutional rights.

So, he will sue, and retire wealthy, if it comes to that.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, September 13, 2020 12:21 PM

zugmann

There would be another lawsuit and fast? 

 

As I understand it, he is suing for monetary damages as well as the right to bring the dog to work.  If U.P. loses the case, I am sure they will have to pay the damges and legal fees of the engineer.  But I don't see how they can be sued for refusing to employ the engineer.  In the article, the engineer mentions that he feels entitled to enjoy the right to work without discomfort.  I doubt that there is such a right. 

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, September 13, 2020 11:57 AM

There would be another lawsuit and fast? 

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, September 13, 2020 10:56 AM

charlie hebdo

If the ruling is against UP,  they would have to let him use the dog and could not fire him for that cause. 

 

What would prevent them from firing him?  What if they told him he was terminated, and then never called him to work?

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, September 13, 2020 10:46 AM

If the ruling is against UP,  they would have to let him use the dog and could not fire him for that cause. 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, September 13, 2020 10:34 AM

If the engineer wins his lawsuit against U.P. with a ruling that U.P. refusing the service dog would violate the ADA rule, I assume this does not require U.P. to let him work with the service dog. Why wouldn't U.P. just terminate him?

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, September 13, 2020 8:53 AM

BaltACD

 

 
zugmann
 
BaltACD
I suspect, in view of PSR and the carrier efforts to reduce manpower counts that the normal yard day is now 12 hours.  Two crews to give a job 24 hour coverage. 

Around here they got rid of a lot of yard jobs.  Few that were left got turned into  locals. 

And they don't like 12's. They like 10s. 

 

Likely a difference between NS & CSX.  I don't know, since I have been blissfully retired for approaching 4 years.

 

 

For those on the B&O agreement, CSX wants them tied up after 8. 

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, September 12, 2020 9:39 PM

zugmann
 
BaltACD
It wasn't my job to be popular.  It wasn't my job to be an *** either.  My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed. 

How about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals? 

That is what the Company Physicians are for - they, after examination, decide who is fit for duty.  After my cancer surgery and treatment I had to be examined by the Company Physician to get my return to duty slip.  I did not need a support animal - I have no idea if I would have been OK'd for duty if I felt I needed one.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, September 12, 2020 9:14 PM

jeffhergert

 

 
zugmann

 

 
BaltACD
It wasn't my job to be popular.  It wasn't my job to be an *** either.  My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed.

 

How about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals?  

 

 

 

We have a guy who had to have a medical implant for his heart.  I don't remember if it's a pacemaker or a defibrillator or what.  Anyway, his personal doctor has cleared him to return to work.  He meets the standards that he could pass the phyiscal to drive truck, even to fly a commercial airplane.  But the railroad medical department won't clear him to return to work.

There have been other cases similar in that a person's personal doctor says they're ready to return to work but the railroad medical department won't OK them.

Many of these people are on short term disability insurance.  Once their personal doctor OKs them, even if the medical department doesn't, their short term disability ends.  We discussed this at a union meeting where we are considering changes to our union sponsered insurance.  Some think this is more than a coincidence. 

Jeff

 

Corporate management, aka,  lackeys,  like to hide behind "policies and procedures" to penalize employees. 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Saturday, September 12, 2020 9:10 PM

zugmann

 

 
BaltACD
It wasn't my job to be popular.  It wasn't my job to be an *** either.  My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed.

 

How about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals?  

 

We have a guy who had to have a medical implant for his heart.  I don't remember if it's a pacemaker or a defibrillator or what.  Anyway, his personal doctor has cleared him to return to work.  He meets the standards that he could pass the phyiscal to drive truck, even to fly a commercial airplane.  But the railroad medical department won't clear him to return to work.

There have been other cases similar in that a person's personal doctor says they're ready to return to work but the railroad medical department won't OK them.

Many of these people are on short term disability insurance.  Once their personal doctor OKs them, even if the medical department doesn't, their short term disability ends.  We discussed this at a union meeting where we are considering changes to our union sponsered insurance.  Some think this is more than a coincidence. 

Jeff

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, September 12, 2020 8:24 PM

zugmann
How about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals?  

Oh come on. What fun would the internet be if we did that?

The WWW is a place where half baked opinion and bluster reign supreme. Clown

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, September 12, 2020 7:14 PM

BaltACD
It wasn't my job to be popular.  It wasn't my job to be an *** either.  My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed.

How about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals?  

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, September 12, 2020 7:14 PM

Making a person whole?   You think someone who now suffers from PTSD is less than whole?  66% person?  How about diabetes?  3/4 person?  Myopia?  52% person?  Treatments of all kinds for chronic conditions are effective if they allow a person to return to adaptive functioning, but they need to be used.  You clearly know little about chronic conditions and handicaps and have even less empathy. 

Maybe if rail management weren't living in the stone age, line workers could get the treatments they need instead of trying to hide their conditions. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, September 12, 2020 7:05 PM

charlie hebdo
 
BaltACD 
charlie hebdo
Yes,  symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer 

And from my laymans point of view - a service animal is no GUARANTEE that those flashbacks won't happen and thereby comprimise safety.

To my knowledge, limited though it is, there is no real 'fix' to a individual's response to PTSD and its triggers. 

So if you believe that no treatment works, you're saying anyone with such a condition should be declared unfit and terminated, since reassignment might violate his contract?   Man, you must have been really popular with engineers. 

It wasn't my job to be popular.  It wasn't my job to be an *** either.  My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed.

If therapy can make a individual 'whole' fine - that is the therapist call, not mine.  If the therapist can't make the individual 'whole' I don't feel a support animal is sufficient 'medication' to permit the individual to work in a stressful safety critical position with the lives of himself and others in his control.  Are commercial airline pilots working with support animals in the cockpit?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, September 12, 2020 7:03 PM

charlie hebdo
BaltACD
charlie hebdo
Yes,  symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer

And from my laymans point of view - a service animal is no GUARANTEE that those flashbacks won't happen and thereby comprimise safety.

To my knowledge, limited though it is, there is no real 'fix' to a individual's response to PTSD and its triggers.

So if you believe that no treatment works, you're saying anyone with such a condition should be declared unfit and terminated, since reassignment might violate his contract?   Man, you must have been really popular with engineers. 

The relevant Agreement(s) will normally outline how such employees can be accomodated. 

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, September 12, 2020 7:02 PM

jeffhergert

 kicking cars uphill. 

CN banned that after a fatality a few years ago in Melville, SK.  Some cars started rolling back and the conductor got on to apply a handbrake, which didn't work. 

She was still on the end of the car when it ran into the other cars on the lead.

https://tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2017/R17W0267/R17W0267.html

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, September 12, 2020 6:45 PM

BaltACD

 

 
charlie hebdo
Yes,  symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer

 

And from my laymans point of view - a service animal is no GUARANTEE that those flashbacks won't happen and thereby comprimise safety.

To my knowledge, limited though it is, there is no real 'fix' to a individual's response to PTSD and its triggers.

 

So if you believe that no treatment works, you're saying anyone with such a condition should be declared unfit and terminated, since reassignment might violate his contract?   Man, you must have been really popular with engineers. 

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, September 12, 2020 6:30 PM

zugmann

Are we going to screen everyone's mental halth at regular intervals?

Remember that ports of LA engineer who tried to yeet his engine across 3 parking lots into a red cross hospital ship?

Maybe they are afraid of what they know they'll find.  Once they know about it they will have to deal with it. 

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, September 12, 2020 6:06 PM

jeffhergert
What if the conductor is scared to death of dogs?  Then he/she will need an emotional support animal.  Probably not a dog. 

You have the chance to come upon dogs out here.  Should that person be a RRer? 

HAd a conductor that was terrified of spiders.  Would spend 3 minutes smacking at a car that had spider webs on it.  (I, OTOH, would feel bad if I messed up a spider-bro's web).

I told him to watch out for cool spring mornings when the snakes would come out to sun themselves on the ROW.  He wasn't amused. 

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy