{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-19", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:0e03a2", "proof": "sha256:336a0154cc0500a7cfc3e4c8507fb516838d299ec34033f456b1a03f43631050", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "For the Eighth Circuit", "paragraphs": [ "para_3" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2173", "paragraphs": [ "para_5" ] }, { "title": "Ross Christensen", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Plaintiff - Appellant", "paragraphs": [ "para_8", "para_9" ] }, { "title": "Defendant - Appellee", "paragraphs": [ "para_11" ] }, { "title": "Appeal from United States District Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_13", "para_14" ] }, { "title": "Submitted: May 12, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Filed: August 11, 2026", "paragraphs": [ "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20" ] }, { "title": "Ross Christensen worked for Union Pacific Railroad Co. (Union Pacific) as a", "paragraphs": [ "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30" ] }, { "title": "On January 9, 2015, while at home and off duty, Christensen suffered a stroke", "paragraphs": [ "para_32", "para_33", "para_34" ] }, { "title": "Christensen received medications to address the blood clots that caused the stroke;", "paragraphs": [ "para_36" ] }, { "title": "By all accounts, Christensen recovered well. Within four days, most of his", "paragraphs": [ "para_38", "para_39", "para_40" ] }, { "title": "Christensen underwent three electrical cardioversion procedures on February", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "24, 2015, to resolve his atrial fibrillation, the condition that predisposed him to", "paragraphs": [ "para_43" ] }, { "title": "Cragun, referred Christensen to an electrophysiologist, Dr. David Wang. On March", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3, 2015, Dr. Cragun cleared Christensen to return to work. Roughly two months", "paragraphs": [ "para_46", "para_47" ] }, { "title": "Because Christensen suffered a stroke, Union Pacific’s Health and Medical", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Services (HMS) department required him to submit to a medical fitness-for-duty", "paragraphs": [ "para_50" ] }, { "title": "1The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the", "paragraphs": [ "para_52", "para_53" ] }, { "title": "Two physicians—Dr. John Holland and Dr. John Charbonneau, Union Pacific’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_55" ] }, { "title": "Charbonneau decided to impose one-year sudden-incapacitation restrictions on", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Christensen’s work. Those restrictions prevented Christensen from, among other", "paragraphs": [ "para_58", "para_59" ] }, { "title": "Union Pacific told Christensen that it could revisit these restrictions one year after", "paragraphs": [ "para_61", "para_62" ] }, { "title": "Christensen submit updated medical records, undergo a further fitness-for-duty", "paragraphs": [ "para_64" ] }, { "title": "In December 2015, Christensen began the return-to-work process. He", "paragraphs": [ "para_66", "para_67", "para_68" ] }, { "title": "Christensen was experiencing “[m]ild clumsiness in [his] right hand,” his balance", "paragraphs": [ "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73" ] }, { "title": "Dr. Holland performed a further fitness-for-duty evaluation. As a result of", "paragraphs": [ "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78" ] }, { "title": "Christensen, who has had a stroke and/or intracerebral hemorrhage in", "paragraphs": [ "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90" ] }, { "title": "Based on this scientific evidence about the risk of seizures after a", "paragraphs": [ "para_92", "para_93" ] }, { "title": "Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) state a commercial driver that", "paragraphs": [ "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, Mr. Christensen has been given . . . work restrictions for", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Sudden Incapacitation risks . . . to remain in place for a minimum of", "paragraphs": [ "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110" ] }, { "title": "Dr. Holland called Christensen on March 18, 2016, to discuss Union Pacific’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118" ] }, { "title": "Roughly two years later, in February 2018, Christensen asked that Union", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Pacific reevaluate his work restrictions. Dr. Charbonneau reviewed Christensen’s", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2016 fitness-for-duty evaluation and updated medical records and concluded “no", "paragraphs": [ "para_122", "para_123" ] }, { "title": "Pacific states that its practice is not to affirmatively reach out to employees about", "paragraphs": [ "para_125", "para_126", "para_127" ] }, { "title": "Christensen never returned to work as a conductor. While the parties made", "paragraphs": [ "para_129", "para_130", "para_131" ] }, { "title": "Christensen sued Union Pacific for damages in 2023. His complaint asserted", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ADA disparate treatment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) and (b)(6). Christensen", "paragraphs": [ "para_134", "para_135" ] }, { "title": "Union Pacific moved for summary judgment. It argued that Christensen", "paragraphs": [ "para_137", "para_138" ] }, { "title": "Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). And it argued that Christensen could", "paragraphs": [ "para_140", "para_141", "para_142" ] }, { "title": "Recognizing that “[t]his is not an easy case” because the “nature of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Christensen’s disability claim and the circumstances of this case present some tricky", "paragraphs": [ "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153" ] }, { "title": "Christensen’s increased risk for seizure might have been relatively low, the nature", "paragraphs": [ "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159" ] }, { "title": "Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Calvin, 802 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2015). “Summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168" ] }, { "title": "Union Pac. R.R. Co., 108 F.4th 1055, 1060 (8th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). But", "paragraphs": [ "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174" ] }, { "title": "Direct threat is an affirmative defense for which the employer bears the burden of", "paragraphs": [ "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179" ] }, { "title": "(2) objectively reasonable, and (3) based on the ‘most current medical knowledge", "paragraphs": [ "para_181" ] }, { "title": "(citations omitted). Moreover, “[s]pecific factors to be considered [in an employer’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186" ] }, { "title": "Here, the summary judgment record establishes each element of Union", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Pacific’s direct threat defense. First, it shows that Union Pacific conducted an", "paragraphs": [ "para_189", "para_190", "para_191" ] }, { "title": "Pacific’s decision to restrict Christensen from returning to work as a conductor was", "paragraphs": [ "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197" ] }, { "title": "Union Pacific set forth evidence that it appropriately consulted the FMCSA", "paragraphs": [ "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202" ] }, { "title": "Christensen failed to raise a fact dispute on any element. Christensen first", "paragraphs": [ "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213" ] }, { "title": "Christensen does not persuasively argue that Union Pacific was required to do", "paragraphs": [ "para_215" ] }, { "title": "Management, LLC, 142 F.4th 1122 (8th Cir. 2025), in support of his argument that", "paragraphs": [ "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226" ] }, { "title": "Next, Christensen argues that he raised a fact issue on the objective", "paragraphs": [ "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235" ] }, { "title": "Union Pacific’s decision was objectively unreasonable.2 See, e.g., Michael v. City", "paragraphs": [ "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242" ] }, { "title": "Charbonneau had disagreed with one of the other medical professionals, the direct", "paragraphs": [ "para_244", "para_245", "para_246" ] }, { "title": "4:19-CV-00069-RGE-RAW, 2021 WL 1726895, at *20 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 29, 2021)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“A plaintiff does not generate a factual issue as to the objective reasonableness of", "paragraphs": [ "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256" ] }, { "title": "Christensen tries to avoid this conclusion by citing our prior decision in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Sanders. But Sanders underscores that Christensen lacks the kind of evidence he", "paragraphs": [ "para_259", "para_260", "para_261" ] }, { "title": "2Christensen also notes that he received a commercial driver’s license during", "paragraphs": [ "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272" ] }, { "title": "Pacific’s decision here. Moreover, Sanders does not make for an apples-to-apples", "paragraphs": [ "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279" ] }, { "title": "Finally, Christensen asserts that he raised a fact issue on the question of", "paragraphs": [ "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285" ] }, { "title": "Carrillo, that court held that evidence that “Union Pacific looked partly to guidance", "paragraphs": [ "para_287", "para_288" ] }, { "title": "Pacific relied on adequate evidence in reaching its decision. 2024 WL 3861374, at", "paragraphs": [ "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295" ] }, { "title": "Christensen criticizes Carrillo’s analysis as burden shifting. But that is the", "paragraphs": [ "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304" ] }, { "title": "Christensen did not raise a fact issue as to the adequacy of the materials on which", "paragraphs": [ "para_306" ] }, { "title": "Because no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to any component of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Union Pacific’s direct threat defense, the district court properly granted summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "For the Eighth Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "___________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "No. 25-2173", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "___________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Ross Christensen", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Plaintiff - Appellant", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Defendant - Appellee", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "____________", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Appeal from United States District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "for the District of Nebraska - Omaha", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "____________", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Submitted: May 12, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Filed: August 11, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "____________", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and KOBES, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "____________", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Ross Christensen worked for Union Pacific Railroad Co. (Union Pacific) as a", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "conductor for over ten years. His job entailed, among other things, operating and", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "moving trains and performing switching operations. After Christensen suffered an", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "ischemic stroke in 2015, Union Pacific did not permit him to return to work as a", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "conductor. So Christensen sued Union Pacific, asserting a disparate treatment claim", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "-2-", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court1 granted", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "summary judgment in Union Pacific’s favor. Christensen appeals. Having", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "I.", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "On January 9, 2015, while at home and off duty, Christensen suffered a stroke", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "and lost consciousness. He went to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "aphasia and right hemiparesis. Later, Christensen was transferred to a second", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "hospital, where he was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, among other conditions.", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "Christensen received medications to address the blood clots that caused the stroke;", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "those medications apparently caused minor bleeding in his brain.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "By all accounts, Christensen recovered well. Within four days, most of his", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "neurological symptoms had disappeared. And Dr. Kevin Call, Christensen’s treating", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "neurologist, cleared Christensen to return to his work as a conductor by the end of", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "February 2015.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Christensen underwent three electrical cardioversion procedures on February", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "24, 2015, to resolve his atrial fibrillation, the condition that predisposed him to", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "strokes. These procedures did not succeed, so Christensen’s cardiologist, Dr. David", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "Cragun, referred Christensen to an electrophysiologist, Dr. David Wang. On March", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "3, 2015, Dr. Cragun cleared Christensen to return to work. Roughly two months", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "later, on April 30, 2015, Dr. Wang performed a successful ablation procedure,", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "restoring Christensen’s heartbeat to a normal rhythm.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "Because Christensen suffered a stroke, Union Pacific’s Health and Medical", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "Services (HMS) department required him to submit to a medical fitness-for-duty", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "evaluation and requested his medical records. Christensen promptly provided them.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "1The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "District of Nebraska.", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "-3-", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "Two physicians—Dr. John Holland and Dr. John Charbonneau, Union Pacific’s", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "Chief Medical Officer—reviewed Christensen’s records. After that review, Dr.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "Charbonneau decided to impose one-year sudden-incapacitation restrictions on", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Christensen’s work. Those restrictions prevented Christensen from, among other", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "things, operating company vehicles and machinery and working on or near moving", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "trains. In view of these restrictions, Christensen could not work as a conductor.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "Union Pacific told Christensen that it could revisit these restrictions one year after", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "the date of Christensen’s stroke—i.e., January 9, 2016. Dr. Charbonneau noted that", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "before Union Pacific would let Christensen return to work, it would require that", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Christensen submit updated medical records, undergo a further fitness-for-duty", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "evaluation, and remain neurologic-event free.", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "In December 2015, Christensen began the return-to-work process. He", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "provided Union Pacific with updated medical records, which included exam notes", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "from an additional physician, Dr. Mohammad Entezari-Taher. Those notes", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "described Christensen’s recovery as “excellent” and acknowledged that while", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "Christensen was experiencing “[m]ild clumsiness in [his] right hand,” his balance", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "and walking were normal. Dr. Entezari-Taher concluded that Christensen was", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "generally strong and neurologically capable of driving commercially. Christensen’s", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "records further indicated that he had not suffered a further neurologic event", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "following his January 2015 stroke.", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "Dr. Holland performed a further fitness-for-duty evaluation. As a result of", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "that evaluation, he concluded that Christensen “ha[d] an unacceptable risk for future", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "seizure relating to his history of stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage.” Dr. Holland", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "The scientific literature documents that persons such as Mr.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "Christensen, who has had a stroke and/or intracerebral hemorrhage in", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "the cortical or sub-cortical areas of the brain, have substantially", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "increased risk for future seizures, due to damage to the brain tissue", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "caused by the stroke hemorrhage. Mr. Christensen’s stroke and", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "intracerebral hemorrhages were in the parietal and temporal lobes,", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "-4-", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "which are parts of the brain cortex. With these types of brain injury,", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "the risk for future seizures exists even if the person has not already had", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "a seizure. However, if the person remains seizure free and off of all", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "anti-seizure drugs for 5 years after the stroke, then the statistical risk", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "for a future seizure declines to an acceptable risk level for safety critical", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "positions (i.e., less than 1% per year occurrence rate).", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "Based on this scientific evidence about the risk of seizures after a", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "cortical stroke and/or intracerebral hemorrhages, the evidence based", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "risk assessments and guidance documents from the Federal Motor", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) state a commercial driver that", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "has had either of these conditions should be prohibited from driving", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "commercial vehicles for at least 5 years. FMCSA guidance documents", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "also state the person may return to commercial driving if the individual", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "has no history of interval strokes, TIAs[,] or seizures, and a current", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "thorough medical evaluation shows no risk factors for these", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "neurological events, and no ongoing functional impairment. HMS", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "considers these recommendations of FMCSA to be evidence-based, and", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "to well characterize risks for sudden incapacitation for work[] in other", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "safety critical positions . . . where the . . . job requirements and safety", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "risks are substantially similar to those of a commercial driver.", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "Therefore, Mr. Christensen has been given . . . work restrictions for", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "Sudden Incapacitation risks . . . to remain in place for a minimum of", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "five years after his . . . stroke . . . due to his significant and imminent", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "risks for a future stroke, TIA[,] or seizure due to his cortical stroke and", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "intracerebral hemorrhages. In January 2020 these work restrictions", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "may be reviewed and removed . . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "Dr. Holland called Christensen on March 18, 2016, to discuss Union Pacific’s", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "decision to continue his work restrictions for five years post-stroke. Dr. Holland", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "told Christensen that, while he had originally been placed on restrictions for one", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "year, as was then Union Pacific’s common practice, Union Pacific “ha[d] changed", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "its practice due to updated scientific information about the frequency of seizures", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "after strokes and intracerebral hemorrhage if in the cortical or subcortical regions of", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "the brain.”", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "-5-", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "Roughly two years later, in February 2018, Christensen asked that Union", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "Pacific reevaluate his work restrictions. Dr. Charbonneau reviewed Christensen’s", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "2016 fitness-for-duty evaluation and updated medical records and concluded “no", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "basis” existed for removing Christensen’s restrictions. Christensen contends he tried", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "again in 2020 to change Union Pacific’s mind about his work restrictions. Union", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "Pacific states that its practice is not to affirmatively reach out to employees about", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "returning to work as their return-to-work dates approach; instead, Union Pacific", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "waits for employees to reach out. Union Pacific contends that it has no record of", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "Christensen’s 2020 return-to-work request.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Christensen never returned to work as a conductor. While the parties made", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "some efforts at reconciliation after Christensen’s 2020 return-to-work date came and", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "went, Christensen did not trust Union Pacific by that point and was approaching", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "retirement age.", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "Christensen sued Union Pacific for damages in 2023. His complaint asserted", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "ADA disparate treatment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) and (b)(6). Christensen", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "ultimately conceded that the claim brought under the latter subsection could be", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "dismissed, and the district court did so, leaving only his claim under § 12112(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Union Pacific moved for summary judgment. It argued that Christensen", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "lacked direct evidence of disability discrimination and so had to establish", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "discrimination under the burden shifting framework specified in McDonnell", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). And it argued that Christensen could", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "not do that because he lacked sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "discrimination. Finally, Union Pacific argued that it was entitled to summary", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "judgment on a direct threat affirmative defense.", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "Recognizing that “[t]his is not an easy case” because the “nature of", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "Christensen’s disability claim and the circumstances of this case present some tricky", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "questions with respect to” the application of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "district court focused exclusively on Union Pacific’s direct threat defense. It", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "-6-", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "reasoned that Union Pacific had conclusively established this defense because it was", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "undisputed that Christensen worked in a safety-sensitive position and because", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "“[t]here is also no question that Christensen’s stroke resulted in a heightened risk of", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "seizures.” The district court further noted that Union Pacific had completed an", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "individualized fitness-for-duty evaluation for Christensen, assessing the nature and", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "duration of the risks he faced and his ability to safely perform his job, and that while", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Christensen’s increased risk for seizure might have been relatively low, the nature", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "and severity of the potential harm if a seizure occurred on the job “was extreme” and", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "the threat of a seizure is “imminent” by nature.", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "Christensen appeals the grant of summary judgment in Union Pacific’s favor.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "II.", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Metro.", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Calvin, 802 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2015). “Summary", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "non-movant, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citation omitted). Christensen contends that", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "the district court erred in granting summary judgment in Union Pacific’s favor,", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "because genuine disputes of material fact exist as to its direct threat defense.", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "To establish an employer’s liability on a § 12112(a) disparate treatment claim,", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "an ADA plaintiff must prove that “(1) he was ‘disabled,’ (2) he was ‘qualified,’ and", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "(3) the employer imposed work limitations because of his disability.” Sanders v.", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "Union Pac. R.R. Co., 108 F.4th 1055, 1060 (8th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). But", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "the ADA recognizes a “direct threat” defense to disparate treatment claims, allowing", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "an employer to avoid liability even if the plaintiff proves these elements. See id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "1062; 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(3), 12113(b). An employee constitutes a direct threat if,", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "because of his disability, he poses “a significant risk to the health or safety of others", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(3).", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "Direct threat is an affirmative defense for which the employer bears the burden of", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "-7-", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "proof. See EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 477 F.3d 561, 571 (8th Cir. 2007). To", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "establish this defense, the employer must prove that its determination that its", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "employee posed a direct threat was “(1) the result of an individualized assessment,", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "(2) objectively reasonable, and (3) based on the ‘most current medical knowledge", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "and/or on the best available objective evidence.’” Sanders, 108 F.4th at 1062", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "(citations omitted). Moreover, “[s]pecific factors to be considered [in an employer’s", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "direct threat analysis] include (1) the duration of risk, (2) the nature and severity of", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "the potential harm, (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and (4) the", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "imminence of the potential harm.” Wal-Mart Stores, 477 F.3d at 571 (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "Here, the summary judgment record establishes each element of Union", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "Pacific’s direct threat defense. First, it shows that Union Pacific conducted an", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "individualized assessment. That assessment included multiple rounds of", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "fitness-for-duty evaluations that involved comprehensive review of Christensen’s", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "medical records, his condition, and his job duties. Second, it shows that Union", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "Pacific’s decision to restrict Christensen from returning to work as a conductor was", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "objectively reasonable. Union Pacific relied on the opinions of multiple physicians", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "and on an extensive medical record in reaching its decision. And third, the record", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "shows that Union Pacific acted on the most current medical knowledge and on the", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "best available objective evidence. Again, it is undisputed that Christensen", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "provided—and Union Pacific reviewed—the appropriate medical records. And", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "Union Pacific set forth evidence that it appropriately consulted the FMCSA", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "guidelines: per Dr. Holland, the FMCSA’s recommendations are “evidence-based”", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "and “well characterize risks for sudden incapacitation for work[] in . . . safety critical", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "positions . . . where the . . . job requirements and safety risks are substantially similar", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "to those of a commercial driver.”", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "Christensen failed to raise a fact dispute on any element. Christensen first", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "contends that a jury could find that Union Pacific did not conduct an individualized", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "assessment because it relied on the FMCSA guidelines. But it does not follow from", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "the fact that Union Pacific relied on the guidelines that Union Pacific failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "-8-", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "conduct an individualized assessment. Indeed, Union Pacific had to conduct an", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "individualized review to determine that the FMCSA’s five-year guideline even", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "applied. That guideline’s application is triggered by the existence of an elevated", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "seizure risk, which Union Pacific determined existed for Christensen based on a", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "review of his condition and circumstances—including the brain bleed Christensen", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "suffered during treatment for his stroke.", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "Christensen does not persuasively argue that Union Pacific was required to do", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "anything more. He relies principally on our decision in EEOC v. Drivers", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "Management, LLC, 142 F.4th 1122 (8th Cir. 2025), in support of his argument that", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "he raised a fact issue on the individualized-assessment element of Union Pacific’s", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "direct threat defense. But the facts of that case stand in stark contrast to the facts of", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "this one. In Drivers Management, the employer “just made a few general calls to", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "back up [its] ‘prejudice, stereotypes, [and] unfounded fear’ of allowing a deaf", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "individual to drive [the employer’s] truck.” 142 F.4th at 1133 (second alteration in", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "original) (citation omitted). On the undisputed facts, Union Pacific’s", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "review—involving multiple fitness-for-duty examinations based on reviews of the", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "medical records that Christensen supplied—was more robust by orders of", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "magnitude. Drivers Management does not compel the conclusion that Christensen", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "raised a fact issue here.", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "Next, Christensen argues that he raised a fact issue on the objective", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "reasonableness of Union Pacific’s direct threat determination because his personal", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "physicians cleared him to return to work. But the fact that Christensen’s physicians", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "on the one hand, and Union Pacific’s on the other, disagreed as to whether he could", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "safely return to work is not material. True, Christensen’s evidence might allow a", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "jury to conclude that Union Pacific was overcautious or wrong in evaluating the", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "safety risk that Christensen posed. That is not the question, however. The question", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "is objective reasonableness, and mere disagreement among experts does not show", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "-9-", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "Union Pacific’s decision was objectively unreasonable.2 See, e.g., Michael v. City", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "of Troy Police Dep’t, 808 F.3d 304, 309 (6th Cir. 2015) (“Reasonable doctors of", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "course can disagree—as they disagree here—as to whether a particular employee", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "can safely perform the functions of his job. That is why the law requires only that", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "the employer rely on an ‘objectively reasonable’ opinion, rather than an opinion that", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "is correct.” (citation omitted)); Carrillo v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 22-50782, 2024", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "WL 3861374, at *5 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2024) (per curiam) (“[E]ven if Dr.", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "Charbonneau had disagreed with one of the other medical professionals, the direct", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "threat analysis asks whether the employer made a ‘reasonable medical", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "judgment[]’—not whether every examining doctor came to the same exact", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "conclusion.” (citation omitted)); Jackson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "4:19-CV-00069-RGE-RAW, 2021 WL 1726895, at *20 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 29, 2021)", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "(“A plaintiff does not generate a factual issue as to the objective reasonableness of", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "the employer’s direct threat determination merely by supplying its doctor’s contrary", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "opinions.”). While a reasonable jury could perhaps conclude from Christensen’s", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "evidence that Union Pacific misjudged the safety risk he posed, there is nothing in", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "the record that would allow a jury to conclude that Union Pacific’s judgment was so", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "off-base as to be objectively unreasonable. Christensen’s physicians did not opine,", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "for instance, that no physician could have reasonably reached a conclusion differing", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "from theirs. To the contrary, Dr. Call conceded that risk prediction in this context is", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "an imprecise science and no tool exists that is “perfectly predictive” of risk.", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "Christensen tries to avoid this conclusion by citing our prior decision in", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "Sanders. But Sanders underscores that Christensen lacks the kind of evidence he", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "would need to raise a fact issue here. In that case, we held that a reasonable jury", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "could have found that Union Pacific failed to act objectively reasonably when it", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "restricted the plaintiff from performing his job duties after he suffered a cardiac", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "2Christensen also notes that he received a commercial driver’s license during", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "the relevant period after a medical examination. The examiner who passed", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "Christensen reached a different decision than Union Pacific’s physicians, but again,", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "that does not permit a finding that Union Pacific’s physicians reached an objectively", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "unreasonable conclusion.", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "-10-", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "arrest. Sanders, 108 F.4th at 1059, 1062. But in reaching that conclusion, we", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "emphasized the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, who opined that “Union Pacific’s", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "decision to limit [the plaintiff] was ‘completely uncalled for, completely wrong, and", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "not based on any medical principles at all.’” Id. at 1062. Christensen points to no", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "evidence in the summary judgment record bearing on the unreasonableness of Union", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "Pacific’s decision here. Moreover, Sanders does not make for an apples-to-apples", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "comparison to our case. The Sanders plaintiff, unlike Christensen, did not serve in", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "such a safety-critical role. See id. at 1059. That fundamentally changes the direct", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "threat analysis Union Pacific had to perform here. See Wal-Mart Stores, 477 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "at 571 (recognizing the “nature and severity of the potential harm” as one of the", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "factors an employer must weigh in evaluating whether an employee’s health", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "condition poses a direct threat).", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "Finally, Christensen asserts that he raised a fact issue on the question of", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "whether Union Pacific relied on the “best current medical or other objective", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "evidence” when it imposed its restrictions. As he points out, the FMCSA withdrew", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "its guidelines “because some of the information [they contain] was obsolete", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "or . . . prescriptive in nature.” The Fifth Circuit has rejected arguments virtually", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "identical to Christensen’s about the import of the guidelines’ withdrawal. In", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Carrillo, that court held that evidence that “Union Pacific looked partly to guidance", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "documents from the [FMCSA] that were not peer-reviewed and were removed from", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "the FMCSA website” was not sufficient to raise a fact issue as to whether Union", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "Pacific relied on adequate evidence in reaching its decision. 2024 WL 3861374, at", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "*5. The court acknowledged that it was “undisputed on th[e] record that the", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "guidance documents were evidence-based and developed through a consensus of", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "medical experts,” and observed that the plaintiff failed to “identify medical literature", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "missing from Union Pacific’s consideration” or “claim that Union Pacific", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "‘intentional[ly] disregard[ed]’ the best objective evidence.” Id. (second and third", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "alterations in original) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "Christensen criticizes Carrillo’s analysis as burden shifting. But that is the", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "nature of summary judgment. Once the movant has discharged its initial burden of", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "-11-", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "apprising the court of the basis for its summary judgment motion and identifying the", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "parts of the record it believes demonstrate the absence of genuine disputes of", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "material fact, it falls on the non-movant to show genuine disputes of material fact", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "exist. See Mensie v. City of Little Rock, 917 F.3d 685, 688 (8th Cir. 2019)", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "(articulating summary judgment standards). Here, as in Carillo, that did not happen.", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "We find Carrillo persuasive and reach the same conclusion as the Carillo court.", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "Christensen did not raise a fact issue as to the adequacy of the materials on which", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "Union Pacific relied.", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "Because no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to any component of", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "Union Pacific’s direct threat defense, the district court properly granted summary", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "judgment in Union Pacific’s favor.", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "III.", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "______________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_312" } ], "word_count": 3251, "cites": [ "411 U.S. 792", "802 F.3d 933", "108 F.4th 1055", "477 F.3d 561", "142 F.4th 1122", "808 F.3d 304", "917 F.3d 685" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "bc59030a400629040764b953a4222ea71f0042ebda6b84c0618807735ebce0f7", "source_url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/08/252173P.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-09-28T06:11:52.891+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11", "neighbors": [ { "id": "us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04", "name": "Dr. Lesley Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia", "decided": "2026-09-04", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04" }, { "id": "us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28", "name": "M. v. Aledo", "decided": "2026-08-28", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28" }, { "id": "us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27", "name": "Lowell v. Lyft, Inc.", "decided": "2026-08-27", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27" }, { "id": "us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25", "name": "Jeremy Ellis v. Sheriff, Hillsborough County Florida", "decided": "2026-08-25", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25" }, { "id": "us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24", "name": "Zamaria Metcalf v. State of Michigan", "decided": "2026-08-24", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24" }, { "id": "us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21", "name": "Christopher Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC", "decided": "2026-08-21", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21" }, { "id": "us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21", "name": "Cherry v. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife", "decided": "2026-08-21", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21" }, { "id": "us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20", "name": "Annette Kingsolver v. U.S. Attorney General", "decided": "2026-08-20", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20" }, { "id": "us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20", "name": "Rios v. City of Azusa", "decided": "2026-08-20", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20" }, { "id": "us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "name": "Mary Holmes v. Jessica Bax", "decided": "2026-08-19", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19" } ], "verification": { "stored_sha256": "bc59030a400629040764b953a4222ea71f0042ebda6b84c0618807735ebce0f7", "recomputed_sha256": "bc59030a400629040764b953a4222ea71f0042ebda6b84c0618807735ebce0f7", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-19T11:23:37.857Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:336a0154cc0500a7cfc3e4c8507fb516838d299ec34033f456b1a03f43631050", "version": "legal-2026-10-19", "expires": "2026-10-20T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-19+legal-2026-10-19+2026-10-19T11:03:58", "content_hash": "sha256:336a0154cc0500a7cfc3e4c8507fb516838d299ec34033f456b1a03f43631050", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-19T12:23:38.721Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-25-2173-2026-08-11" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "_sweep_notice": { "mode": "citation", "reason": "corpus sweep without measurable return", "vendor": "Anthropic", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text", "full_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise", "attribution": "cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source" }, "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }