# Michael Nall v. BNSF Railway Company

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · February 15, 2019 · 917 F.3d 335

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9888022

## Case

- **Full name:** Flora NALL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Nall, Substituted in Place and Stead of Michael Nall, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 15, 2019
- **Citations:** 917 F.3d 335
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Judge
- **Judges:** James, Elrod, Costa
- **Nature of suit:** Civil Rights
- **Cited by:** 146 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9888022

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that comments by managers regarding an employee who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease that he “was never coming back to work” and “people with Parkinson’s don’t get better” were not sufficient to show direct discrimination because the inference had to be drawn tha…
- stating that employer’s direct threat conclusion must not result from “a categorical conclusion that an employee with a particular disability cannot safely perform a job”
- affirming summary judgment against Americans with Disabilities Act plaintiff who failed to offer evidence of any reasonable accommodation that would have enabled him to perform the essential functions of his job

## Opinion text

JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I applaud the panel majority for withdrawing its earlier opinion in this matter ( 912 F.3d 263 ), for the reasons stated in footnote 6 of its revised opinion. Although I would still affirm the district court for the case-specific evidentiary reasons specified in my original dissent (but which are not independently worthy of en banc review) ( see id . at 279-83), the panel majority has now wisely obviated the need for en banc rehearing in this case, by removing the process-based theory of liability that animated its earlier opinion. There is no basis for such a legal theory under the ADA, for reasons that need not be repeated here-but are well articulated in the petition for en banc rehearing and the persuasive amicus briefs filed by the Association of American Railroads, the Center for Workplace Compliance, and the National Federation of Independent Business ( see also id . at 283-84).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9888022. Public record. Not legal advice.