Service v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

A train engineer sued his employer for failing to accommodate his asthma by providing a smoke-free work environment. The court found that the employee’s claims that he was discriminated against in violation of state and federal law could proceed. The court ruled that the employee had demonstrated enough evidence to move forward with his claim that his asthma substantially limited his major life activity of breathing. According to the court, the employee’s asthma was severe, potentially life-threatening, and could not be completely controlled with mitigating measures such as an inhaler.  The court also found that the employee had provided enough evidence to question whether the employer had reasonably accommodated his asthma. The court noted that the only accommodation offered by the company was an air freshener and the fact that the company had recently implemented a no-smoking policy indicated that such a measure would not impose an undue hardship on the company.

Service v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 153 F.Supp.2d 1187 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

  • United States
  • Jul 30, 2001
  • U.S. District Court, E.D. California
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Dennis Service

Defendant

  • Renzenberger, Inc.
  • Union Pacific Railroad Company

Legislation Cited

Americans with Disabilities Act

California Fair Employment and Housing Act

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Plaintiff has produced evidence that exposure to tobacco smoke and its residue causes him to suffer severe asthma attacks necessitating the use of medication and sometimes hospitalization. Union Pacific argues that plaintiff's asthma does not substantially limit his breathing because it can be controlled through mitigating measures, namely by using inhalers and taking hot showers. Although the court must consider any factors that may mitigate plaintiff's impairment, the presence of mitigating measures does not mean that an individual is not protected by the ADA. Sutton, 527 U.S. at 488, 119 S.Ct. 2139. Rather, an individual may still be substantially limited in a major life activity, notwithstanding the use of a corrective device like medicine, which may only lessen the symptoms of an impairment. Id. In other words, "the use or nonuse of a corrective device does not determine whether an individual is disabled; that determination depends on whether the limitations an individual with an impairment actually faces are in fact substantially limiting." Id. Here, plaintiff cannot "cure" his asthma or prevent an asthmatic attack by using an inhaler or by taking hot showers. Plaintiff can only use these mitigating measures after an attack has already begun to help cope with his condition, and even then his asthma cannot always be controlled. While these measures may lessen the duration of plaintiff's attacks, they do not lessen the limitations he faces when exposed to tobacco smoke or its residue. Union Pacific's contention that plaintiff's asthma is not sufficiently severe also lacks merit. Plaintiff need not suffer an attack every time he is exposed to smoke or smoke residue in order to be "disabled" under the ADA. Plaintiff has produced evidence that he suffers symptoms such as chest tightness, coughing, and shortness of breath when exposed to smoke and smoke residue and that he suffered six severe attacks between June 1994 and May 1997. Moreover, plaintiff's treating physician considers his attacks life threatening. This evidence, at a minimum, creates a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's condition is sufficiently severe. Finally, Union Pacific's assertion that plaintiff's condition is "temporary" is also without merit. Plaintiff need not be in a constant state of distress or suffer an asthmatic attack to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Based on the above, the court easily finds that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether plaintiff's asthma substantially limited his major life activity of breathing."