$27 Million Verdict against Employer on Disability Discrimination over Refusal to Return Employee to Work

In December of 2025, an Oregon federal judge refused Union Pacific’s effort to set aside a $27 million verdict in a suit from the worker alleging he was discriminated against for an injury.  Granas v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-00116 (D. Ore. 2025).  After the plaintiff dislocated his right shoulder, he was cleared to return to work without restrictions.  The railroad had concerns of re-injury while climbing ladders, which was an essential function of his position, and he was allegedly given permanent work restrictions that cost him his position.  Although the employer argued that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” because the injury made him incapable of performing essential job functions, the federal judge credited evidence that he was qualified, from the plaintiff’s medical providers and expert witnesses who testified that he was ready to work and climb ladders, and that there was no evidence he was at risk for re-dislocation.  The judge also found that the employer had improperly used its “one percent” policy, in which employees are not allowed to return to their jobs if they face injuries that left them with a one percent or greater chance of incapacitation.  The judge found that the treatment of the plaintiff was not the result of careful evaluation, but it was due to a strict, blanket policy that automatically disqualified any employees with a shoulder dislocation, and thus discriminates against anyone who discloses that injury or disability.  

A jury had sided with the plaintiff and awarded him about $500,000 in past wages, $440,000 in future pay, $1 million in non-economic damages, and $25 million in punitive damages.  

Editor’s Note:  Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), there are limits on punitive and compensatory damages, but some state laws may not have such limitations.  The judge and jury apparently found the one percent policy not consistent with the disability laws that generally require individual assessment. 

In a related development, in January of this year, a jury in a Florida district court found that an employer failed to accommodate a job applicant’s disability during pre-hiring drug testing in connection with their use of prescription medications.  EEOC v. The Princess Martha LLC, No. 8:22-cv-02182 (N.D. Fla. 1/12/26).  The court upheld the jury finding that indicated that the employer had not engaged in an interactive process for disability accommodation.  The jury’s award of $400,000 total and compensatory and punitive damages wasn’t grossly excessive, according to the judge, but the award was subject to a $50,000 statutory cap for those type damages based on the size of the employer, and the judge reduced the jury award accordingly. 

This article is part of our February 2026 Newsletter. 

View the newsletter online

Download the newsletter as a PDF