Where railroad employees moved to certify a class action for a claim challenging the railroad’s fitness-for-duty policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the individualized inquiries could not be addressed in a manner consistent with Rule 23, so the predominance and cohesiveness requirements of the rule were violated, and the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class.
Judgment is reversed.
Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (MLW No. 74743/Case No. 19-1514 – 16 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Bataillon, J. (Thomas Henderson Dupree Jr., Washington, D.C., argued for appellant) (James H. Kaster, Minneapolis, argued for appellee).