1
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________
No. 26-40061
____________
James Bien,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:25-CV-74
______________________________
Before Smith, Haynes, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge:
James Bien worked for Union Pacific Railroad Company as a conduc- tor. After failing two vision tests, he was given a work restriction and was removed from his job as a conductor. Approximately two years later, Bien passed a vision test, which Union Pacific had given him by mistake. He sought to remove his restriction by taking a follow-up test. After Union Pacific denied that request, he sued.
Union Pacific sought to dismiss Bien's suit as time-barred by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The district court granted Union United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 26, 2026 Thomas B. Plunkett, III Clerk
2
Pacific's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, rejecting Bien's assertion that he was entitled to American Pipe tolling because he was a member of a previously filed class action's first class definition and was not unambiguously excluded from its revised class definition. See Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S.
538 (1974).
We agree with Bien. Because excluding a class member from American Pipe tolling requires unambiguous exclusion, Union Pacific does not prevail. Its arguments, however elegant, are either insufficient to put exclusion be- yond doubt or turn on the types of technical textual arguments that under- mine the very purposes of American Pipe tolling. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with regard to Bien's exclusion from the revised class.
I.
Bien was a locomotive train conductor. In 2013, as part of his Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") certification, Bien took an Ishihara color vision test,1which he failed. In July 2013, Bien failed a follow-up "color vis- ion field test." That same month, Union Pacific removed Bien from his job as conductor. Shortly thereafter, it sent Bien a letter informing him that he was restricted from working jobs that required color signal recognition and that his restriction could not be accommodated; it terminated his employ- ment as a conductor. Bien failed another color vision field test in August 2013 and, in 2014 (after several months of unemployment), Union Pacific hired Bien as a Manager of Crew Utilization, a position that paid less. _____________________
1 The Ishihara color vision test is a common ophthalmological test that "requires subjects to identify numbers and figures made up of multi-colored dots" to test for color- blindness. Zaragoza v. Union Pac. R.R., 112 F.4th 313, 316 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied,
3
In August or September 2015, Bien received a notification from Union Pacific about performing an FRA recertification physical. In September, per the notification, he took an Ishihara color vision test and passed. Accord- ingly, he requested that Union Pacific administer the field test required to confirm his recertification, reconsider his work restriction, and (upon suc- cess) reinstate him as a conductor.
In October 2015, Union Pacific sent Bien a letter responding to his request. The letter stated that his request had been "formally reviewed by a committee that reviews all [field test] appeals." It explained that said com- mittee had (1) determined that the 2013 field test was valid; (2) concluded that Bien's color vision deficiency is "presumed to be hereditary and per- manent" because he had not presented evidence that his 2013 failed tests were the result of some temporary condition; and (3) ruled that the 2015 passing Ishihara test "does not negate or override the finding" of the 2013 failed field test, because the field test is "a more accurate and definitive test"
than the Ishihara test.
Apparently, the second Ishihara test was "done in error": Union Pacific had it administered to him by mistake. Because Bien had failed the 2013 tests, the only way he could legitimately retake the tests, under Union Pacific's system, would be first to dispute their accuracy or propriety. Never- theless, Union Pacific's committee weighed the 2015 test as failing to over- ride the presumption, and, "[a]fter considering all information" in his rec- ord, denied Bien's request to retake the field test.
Bien dual-filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and the Texas Workforce Commission in April 2020. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Bien sued in January 2025.
Nearly nine years before Bien's suit, in February 2016, another group of plaintiffs filed a class action against Union Pacific in Harris v. Union Pacific
4
Railroad Company, 329 F.R.D. 616 (D. Neb. 2019), rev'd, 953 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2020). The class was initially defined by the plaintiffs as follows:
Individuals who were removed from service over their objec- tion, and/or suffered another adverse employment action, dur- ing their employment with Union Pacific for reasons related to a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation at any time from 300 days before the earliest date that a named Plaintiff filed an administrative charge of discrimination to the resolution of this action. Id. at 621 (emphasis added). In February 2019, the Harris district court certified a narrower class that consisted of
[a]ll individuals who have been or will be subject to a fitness-for-duty examination as a result of a reportable health event at any time from September 18, 2014 until the final resolution of this action. Id. at 628 (emphasis added).
In the present case, the district court concluded that Bien was a part of the first class definition but not the second one, on the theory that Union Pacific's evaluation of his 2015 test was not a "fitness-for-duty examination"
within the meaning of the second definition. Because exclusion from the second class meant that the statute of limitations on Bien's claims had run,2 the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. Since that ruling sufficed to resolve the case, it found the questions concerning exhaus- tion of administrative remedies and failure to state a claim to be moot. Bien appeals.
_____________________
5
II.
A. Standard of Review We review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Johnson v. Harris Cnty., 83 F.4th 941, 944 (5th Cir. 2023). "We accept all well-pleaded facts as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party," but legal conclusions and con- clusory statements do not enjoy that presumption. Id. (citation modified).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). And "[a] statute of limitations may support dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where it is evident from the plain- tiff's pleadings that the action is barred and the pleadings fail to raise some basis for tolling" vel sim. Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 2003). Bien contends that American Pipe tolling applies.
B. American Pipe Tolling
The basic idea of American Pipe tolling is that courts will equitably
"stop the clock" on a given claim's statute of limitations if the plaintiff meets a class definition in a relevant class action case.3Tolling limitations in these circumstances is equitable because, absent American Pipe tolling, a plaintiff whose statute of limitations expires in the near future might be wary of sign- ing onto a class action for fear that sometime after limitations has run, the class will be narrowed to exclude him (leaving him without a valid claim). American Pipe, 414 U.S. at 553. The American Pipe rule ensures that there is no penalty against those who forgo an individual suit and remain as party to _____________________
6
the class action. Zaragoza, 112 F.4th at 318 (citing American Pipe, 414 U.S. at 553).
American Pipe tolling thus applies from the moment a plaintiff satisfies even a putative class definition, and it pauses his claim's statute of limitations unless and until he is unambiguously excluded from a class definition. See Zaragoza, 112 F.4th at 322.4Once a definition is adopted that unambiguously excludes a plaintiff, limitations resumes running. Id. at 321.
III.
A.
Zaragoza's standard of unambiguous exclusion is designed to effect the aim of American Pipe tolling according to equitable principles. Requiring unambiguous exclusion from a class definition in order to resume the running of limitations makes sense: Any other rule would encourage plaintiffs to file individual suits the moment a class definition is arguably narrowed. See Zar- agoza, 112 F.4th at 321-22 (citing DeFries, 104 F.4th at 1099). Our rule— that any ambiguity as to a plaintiff's exclusion from a class definition pre- serves American Pipe tolling—respects the equitable origin of tolling by sup- porting the aims of the relevant legal framework (i.e., American Pipe and Rule 23 itself).5
_____________________
7
Thus, even if Union Pacific presents a plausible reading of the class definition, that is not sufficient to exclude Bien unambiguously from the class. American Pipe does not require a plaintiff to squint at the words of a class definition to divine his exclusion from imprecise alterations or subtle shifts of syntax.6Defendants, consequently, may not create exclusion out of fine-grained linguistic variations among definitions. If "unambiguous exclusion" is to do any work at all as a legal standard for analyzing class definitions for purposes of American Pipe tolling, it must mean that exclusion is not a matter up for serious debate.7Nothing but the _____________________
was to occupy that space 'not regulated by some express or written law.'" (quoting
1 Joseph Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence 5 (1st ed.
1836))).
8
most straightforward, black-and-white, no-lawyer-required cases of exclu- sion will end American Pipe tolling for a plaintiff who meets an initial class definition. Conversely, a plaintiff who offers a plausible reading of the class definition that includes him will enjoy the benefit of American Pipe tolling.
B.
Having laid out the relevant law, we apply it to the facts. Recall that the putative class definition originally proffered in Harris (the Nebraska class action) encompassed individuals who were adversely affected "for reasons related to a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation" in the relevant time period. Harris, 329 F.R.D. at 621 (emphases added). The district court's certified class, in relevant part, extended to those who "have been or will be subject to a fitness-for-duty examination" in the relevant time period. Id. at 628 (emphases added). The only event Bien advances as within these definitions' sweep was his 2015 test and correspondence with Union Pacific. The issue at hand is whether the second (certified) class definition unambig- uously excluded Bien because his test and correspondence with Union Pacific was not "subject[ion] to" a "fitness-for-duty examination."
Union Pacific urges that Bien unambiguously falls outside the nar- rower class definition because he was not "subject to" an "examination."
Union Pacific primarily contends that the word "examination" refers to a particular, discrete part of a broader fitness-for-duty evaluation under its Medical Rules.8Further, it argues that, even if "examinations" and "evalu- _____________________
bear [an agency's] asserted meaning" in "the context of an Act that must be interpreted"
by a court). Cf. Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 326 (2014) (Chevron deference is impermissible where statutory terms are clear, even in the context of a complex statutory scheme).
9
ations" are interchangeable, Bien was not "subject to" a fitness-for-duty evaluation or examination because subjection requires unilateral action on the part of the employer (whereas Bien requested his review), and because Union Pacific did not actively subject him to any examination, but rather, merely declined to reopen his case.
Bien counters that he was not unambiguously excluded from the re- certified class because the term "fitness-for-duty examination" is broad— encompassing a "fitness-for duty assessment, review, or evaluation—that is
"the overall process of reviewing or examining information for the purpose of deciding if [he] was fit for duty." Bien notes that the Union Pacific Med- ical Rules use the terms "evaluation" and "examination" interchangeably. Finally, he maintains that he should at least survive a motion to dismiss because the doctor's letter included in the record indicates that the com- mittee reviewed all information.
C.
Bien has the better of the argument. First, it would seem plausible, on its face, that Bien's second test "subject[ed]" him to a fitness-for-duty exam- ination within the meaning of the second class definition. The fact that the test was given in error is not relevant to whether he was plausibly "subjected to an examination" per the certified class definition.
The review process confirms that Bien should not reasonably have been on notice as to his unambiguous exclusion from the Harris class's certi- fied definition.9Union Pacific had Bien take a test (even if by error) and _____________________
law and company regulation and "may include, but are not limited to [sic] various compon- ents such as: (1) regulatory medical certification requirements; (2) drug screen; (3) medical, psychological and/or functional evaluations, (4) obtaining additional medical records for review by HMS, and (5) other information as deemed necessary by HMS."
10
then denied his request for re-testing and reinstatement. Union Pacific's let- ter stated that his request had been "formally reviewed by a committee that reviews all [field test] appeals" and ruled that his passing the 2015 Ishihara test "does not negate or override" the findings underlying his previous work restriction. And its review came "[a]fter considering all information" in his record.10Union Pacific had Bien take a test that unambiguously bore on the validity of his fitness-for-duty (since it was a component of the very tests that led to his work restriction), and that test plausibly examined his status. The fact that Union Pacific had to weigh the new test evidence against his prior status shows that the 2015 test and review did not unambiguously fail to sub- ject him to a fitness-for-duty examination.
Union Pacific's textual arguments fail to show that Bien's interpreta- tion was obviously and irrefutably wrong.
First, Union Pacific claims that Bien's test and its review thereof were unambiguously not "examinations" of any kind. It suggests that its Medical Rules name evaluations as a broad process of assessing fitness-for-duty but that examinations are some particular part of that process (namely, the field test that Union Pacific denied Bien). But the inclusion of "examinations" in Union Pacific's internal definition of "fitness-for-duty evaluation" does not foreclose a plausible lay understanding that a "fitness-for-duty examination"
is interchangeable with a "fitness-for-duty evaluation."11And the Medical _____________________
examination. Lack of action or a summary denial would not change that fact.
11
Rules define fitness-for-duty-evaluations to include "all medical tests, exam- inations, and evaluations" necessary for compliance, including "functional evaluations" and "other information as deemed necessary." It would be questionable to say that the word "examination" refers only to one particular vision test, when the Medical Rules include it among such a panoply of broad evaluative abstract nouns. It would be strange to say that Union Pacific's proposed reading of the Medical Rules is the true and only unambiguous reading of the Harris certified class definition.
Second, Union Pacific posits that Bien was not "subject to" an exam- ination "as a result of a reportable health event," citing DeFries for the propo- sition that the certified Harris class was intentionally narrowed. But DeFries,
104 F.4th at 1102, interprets the class to have been intentionally narrowed to exclude those who were subject to a fitness-for-duty examination only as a routine matter of employment and not as the result of a health event. Because Bien's 2015 test and his previous tests are arguably reportable health events, he is not unambiguously one of the plaintiffs who were supposedly meant to be excluded by the Harris narrowed class definition.12 _____________________
refers "only to 'examinations.'"
12
Just like the change from "related to" to "result of" a reportable health event between the first and second definitions, this change "turns on the kinds of subtle distinctions in language that are fodder for lawyers and quicksand for laymen."13Such fine variations cannot form the basis of the kind of unambiguous exclusion necessary to kill American Pipe tolling; to hold otherwise would undermine the entire point of the judiciary's recognition of American Pipe tolling.
Union Pacific has provided elegant and persuasive arguments for why its reading is the best rendering of the text. But it has not provided a reading so unambiguously clear that a bystander plaintiff such as Bien would have recognized his exclusion with no plausible contrary argument. That being the case, Bien is entitled to American Pipe tolling.14
IV.
We choose not to reach the issue of whether the plaintiff exhausted all of his administrative remedies. The district court dismissed the question of exhaustion as moot; Bien did not mention it in his opening brief; and it received relatively minimal briefing in the answering briefs. So we remand it for the district court to address.
* * * * *
Bien was not unambiguously excluded from the Harris class action, and so the statute of limitations on his claim was tolled under American Pipe. Accordingly, we REVERSE with regard to Bien's exclusion from the class and REMAND for further proceedings. We place no limitation on the mat- _____________________
13
ters that the district court, as appropriate, may address, and we express no view on what decisions it should announce.