Exhaustion of FRA Certification Process as Prerequisite to ADA Qualification for Railroad Conductors

Introduction

Turner v. BNSF Railway (5th Cir. 2025) arises from Tracy Turner’s challenge under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after BNSF Railway refused to recertify him as a conductor because he failed two federally‐approved vision tests. Turner had a congenital red‐green color deficiency, had safely performed conductor duties for fifteen years, but failed the Ishihara clinical test and a subsequent company‐designed “field test.” He did not pursue the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) multi‐step administrative appeals process and instead filed suit in district court. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for BNSF, holding that Turner was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because he lacked the required FRA certification and had not exhausted administrative remedies. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. A dissent argued that neither the ADA nor any statute made exhaustion of the FRA’s optional appeals process a prerequisite to bring a Title I claim.

Summary of the Judgment

The court held de novo that Turner failed to plead a prima facie ADA claim because he was not a “qualified individual.”
“Qualified individual” under 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) requires, among other things, possession of any licensing or certification mandated by federal law.
Because FRA regulations mandated conductor certification via two vision tests—and Turner failed both—and because he never invoked the FRA’s administrative review procedures, he lacked the required certification.
The court rejected Turner’s ADA claim and affirmed the district court judgment on the pleadings. It declined to reach the separate preclusion issue.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Fifth Circuit’s majority relied on:

42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) – Defines “qualified individual” for ADA purposes.
49 U.S.C. § 20135(a)–(b) – Delegates to the FRA the power to certify locomotive conductors and prescribes an optional three‐tiered administrative review.
49 C.F.R. §§ 240.121, 242.117 – Require two color‐vision tests and FRA approval of any “field test.”
Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport, 826 F.3d 806 (5th Cir. 2016) – Discussed potential conflict between ADA claims and DOT certification rules (the court noted exhaustion is not jurisdictional, but the majority invoked it as a prudential bar).
Circuit authority from the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits (e.g., McNelis, Coffey, King, Bay, Harris) – Recognize that allowing ADA lawsuits to challenge safety‐mandated certification without agency exhaustion would force employers into a Hobson’s choice between violating safety rules or risking ADA liability.

2. Legal Reasoning

The core of the majority’s reasoning is that a locomotive conductor cannot be a “qualified individual” under the ADA unless he possesses the mandatory FRA certification. The FRA’s rail‐safety regime is Congress’s chosen mechanism to ensure “the highest degree of safety” in railroad operations. FRA regulations prescribe two successive color‐vision tests—first a standardized clinical test (Ishihara plates), then, on request, a railway‐specific “field test.” Failure of both tests, absent a medical examiner’s discretionary finding of safe performance, precludes recertification. Because Turner failed both tests, BNSF had no discretion but to withdraw his certification.

The court held that if Turner wanted to overturn BNSF’s application of the FRA rules, he was required first to complete the FRA’s three‐tiered appeals process (Operating Crew Review Board → Presiding Officer → FRA Administrator), with a further right to direct judicial review under the Hobbs Act. By failing to pursue that process, Turner did not establish that he “satisfied the requisite . . . certification” and so was not a “qualified individual” able to maintain an ADA claim.

3. Impact

Railroad employees denied FRA‐mandated recertification must exhaust the FRA’s optional administrative review before suing under the ADA.
Employers subject to federal safety regulations gain certainty: compliance with those regs shields them from ADA challenges based on the same standards.
Potential tension for other industries: where federal agencies impose mandatory qualifications, employees may likewise face exhaustion prerequisites to bring discrimination suits.
Dissent warns of narrowing ADA accessibility, especially where statutory exhaustion is not required by the ADA itself.

Complex Concepts Simplified

"Qualified Individual" (ADA) – An employee who can perform the essential duties of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations, and who meets any employment prerequisites (education, skills, licensing) not of the employer’s own making.
FRA Certification – By law, conductors must be certified via vision tests approved by the Federal Railroad Administration to ensure they can read red/green signals. No vision = no conductor job.
Ishihara Test – A 14‐plate color‐blindness screening used nationwide.
Field Test – A second, railway‐specific color‐vision exam designed to mimic real‐life signal-viewing conditions, subject to FRA approval.
Administrative Exhaustion – The doctrine that a litigant must use all available agency procedures (here, the FRA’s three-tier appeals) before filing suit in court.

Conclusion

In Turner v. BNSF Railway, the Fifth Circuit crystallized a new principle: where federal safety statutes and regulations mandate a certification process, an employee cannot qualify for an ADA discrimination claim unless he (1) holds the required certification and (2) has exhausted the agency’s optional administrative appeals. This decision emphasizes the primacy of federal safety regimes over parallel statutory schemes like the ADA. Its practical effect will be to steer appeals of safety‐driven qualification decisions through agency channels first, limiting district‐court ADA suits until after those processes conclude.