Reinhardt v. BNSF Railway Company et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting 47 Motion for Remand. MHRC final agency decision is Reversed and Remanded to the MHRC for further proceedings consistent with this Order and Opinion and Order 30 . Signed by Judge Charles C. Lovell on 4/4/2016. (MKB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
*******
MITCHELL REINHARDT,

CV 10-27-H-CCL

Petitioner,
-v-

REMAND ORDER

BURLINGTON NORTHERN
SANTA FE RAILROAD,
Respondent.
*******
This case began when Petitioner Mitchell Reinhardt (“Reinhardt”) filed his
petition for judicial review of a final agency decision of the Montana Human
Rights Commission (“MHRC”). Upon initial review, this Court found that the
agency’s final decision was affected by an error of law that substantially affected
the rights of the appellant, and therefore this Court reversed and remanded the

1

case to the MHRC so that the hearings officer could perform the proper legal
analysis, and make the relevant factual findings, for a direct-evidence/perceiveddisability claim of discrimination.
Following remand, however, the Hearing Officer (“HO”) engaged in the
same legal analysis as before and thereby avoided making the necessary findings
of fact under the correct legal analysis.
During the initial review, this Court determined that the HO had incorrectly
utilized the McDonnell Douglas test, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973), which is a legal analysis unsuitable for a direct-evidence case.
(Doc. 30 at 13.) The Court’s initial review showed that “Reinhardt has presented a
prima facie direct evidence case of discrimination based on a perceived physical
disability.” (Doc. 30 at 19.) The legal analysis that was left undone required the
HO to enter findings of fact regarding BNSF’s safety defense under Montana law.
However, there were no factual findings as to whether BNSF (1) engaged in an
interactive process with Reinhardt to identify appropriate reasonable
accommodations, (2) investigated reasonable accommodations, and (3) conducted
2

an independent assessment of the risk of substantial harm. See McDonald v. Dept.
Envtl. Quality, 214 P.3d 749, 764 fn.9 (Mont. 2009); Reeves v. Dairy Queen, Inc.,
953 P.2d 703, 711 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Mont. Admin. R. 24.9.606(8)); Hafner
v. Conoco, Inc., 977 P.2d 330 (Mont. 1999); Mont. Admin. R. 24.9.606(7)
(employer’s failure to conduct independent assessment giving rise to disputable
presumption of “pretext for discrimination on the basis of disability”). The Court
noted that, once the prima facie case has been presented, the employer bears the
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence in justifying its adverse action
in a direct-evidence case. See Allison v. Town of Clyde Park, 11 P.3d 544, 547
(Mont. 2000).
Following remand, the HO performed the same analysis in approximately
the same way as prior to remand, causing the MHRC to send the case back to the
HO to follow this Court’s instructions. Instead of doing so, however, the HO
asserted that the MHRC had decided all the factual issues of the case and left
nothing for the HO to do but to assess damages. The HO thereupon assessed
damages in the amount of $200,317.52.
3

In response to this, the MHRC withdrew its second remand order and
merely adopted the HO’s second decision (which had failed to make factual
findings under the direct-evidence analysis). The missing factual findings are
necessary to permit a complete review of the HO’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law. This leaves us where we began four years ago. The Court has
examined the more recent case of Fischer v. Minneapolis Public Schools, 792 F.3d
985 (8th Cir. 2015), and finds it to be distinguishable. The plaintiff in Fischer
could not pass a strength test that was a formal condition of employment that
applied to all employees being called back following a layoff; the plaintiff clearly
did not have an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity. In
Reinhardt’s case, the employer’s subjective perception that Reinhardt had an
impairment (possibly due to a stroke, muscle weakness, and inability to balance
properly when walking on uneven surfaces) was not related to an objective and
formal condition of employment and was not justified by the failure of any test. In
fact, Reinhardt had been cleared medically by the employer for this position. The
real issue in this case is not the employer’s motive for the termination (which is
4

reasonably plain) but the procedural steps that the employer followed prior to the
termination, and whether the employer conducted an independent assessment of
the risk of substantial harm, investigated reasonable accommodations, and
engaged in an interactive process to identify appropriate reasonable
accommodations that would ameliorate any risk of harm.
Once again, this Court emphasizes that this Court has not determined that
BNSF’s termination of Reinhardt was unlawful. A direct-evidence legal analysis
supported by relevant factual findings as to BNSF’s safety defense does not
ineluctably lead to a finding of actionable discrimination. Instead, and for the
second time, this Court determines that the Hearing Officer’s legal analysis was
not correct and that the HO failed to make the necessary findings of fact as to
BNSF’s safety defense.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion to Remand (Doc.
47) is GRANTED. The final agency decision of the Montana Human Rights
Commission is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent
5

with this Order and the Court’s prior Opinion and Order (Doc. 30).
Dated this 4th day of April, 2016.

6