Case Name: Rodney J. Cook v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Date Decided: January 20, 2010
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Judge: Judge Colloton, Judge Beam, Judge Benton
Citation: 2010 WL 173834 (C.A.8(Neb.)

Background:
Rodney Cook worked for defendant, Union Pacific Company, and brought an action under FELA, Federal Employers’ Liability  Act, alleging that his work duties caused permanent injuries.

Cook stated during the FELA trial that he was concerned for the safety of his co-workers and general public if he returned to work. Ultimately Cook received a jury verdict of $610,000 for his FELA claim.

Following the FELA trial, Cook requested that UP reinstate him as a locomotive engineer which UP declined to do so. Cook supplied UP with a doctor’s note clearing him for full duty as a railroad engineer. UP then informed Cook he was required to submit a return-to-work physical and upon calling the medical office a few days later was told his file was on “hold”.

Cook then filed a charge of discrimination alleging that he was being discriminated against based upon a record of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

At a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, Cook testified with regard to his various daily physical activities. Ultimately, the ALJ decided that Cook failed to establish a record of disability and he was estopped from arguing that he could perform the duties of a locomotive engineer.

Cook failed to timely request an administrative record be prepared upon attempting to appeal the decision to the Nebraska state courts.

The District Court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of UP finding that judicial estoppels prevented Cook from taking materially different positions in two judicial proceedings.

Issue:
Did this Court find the District Court erred in granting UP’s motion for  summary judgment?

Held:
This Court ultimately affirmed the district court’s finding and held that judicial estoppels barred the action. In the original FELA claim, Cook asserted he had permanent disabilities preventing him from returning as a locomotive engineer.

However, in his attempt to work again and discrimination action, Cook argued that he was ok to work, contrary to the position he took during his FELA action.

Comment:
It is important to understand the concept of judicial estoppels, this opinion did not go into much detail.

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppels a party may be prevented from taking inconsistent positions in successive cases with the same adversary.

Four elements must be met:
(1) A party must assume a position clearly inconsistent with a position taken in an earlier case or with a position taken in the same case. (2) A party must assume the inconsistent position with the intent to manipulate the judicial process and gain an unfair advantage. (3) A party must have successfully maintained the position in an earlier proceeding such that the court relied upon the position and (4) The integrity of the judicial process of at least one court must be impaired or injured by the inconsistent positions taken.