“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump Judges Kurt Engelhardt and Andrew Oldham cast the deciding votes in a Fifth Circuit case making it harder for people with disabilities to go to court when facing illegal job discrimination. The May 2025 case was Turner v. BNSF Railway.
What was this case about?
Tracy Turner was a railway conductor for BNSF Railway for 15 years. Under federal law, a person must be certified to work as a train conductor. Turner was born with a disability affecting his perception of the colors red and green. The railroad regularly tested him to determine if he could see well enough to do the job. He passed every time and was repeatedly certified as a conductor.
But in 2020, BNSF used a different test than before, which Turner did not pass. He was denied certification and lost his job.
Turner claimed that the new test did not accurately reflect real-world conditions like the earlier test had. He also claimed that his vision had not changed since the earlier tests. He sued the railroad for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A Trump district court judge ruled for the railroad. Turner appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
What did Trump judges Engelhardt and Oldham do and why is it harmful?
A divided three-judge panel affirmed the lower court in an opinion written by Judge Engelhardt and joined by Judge Oldham. They ruled that Turner was not qualified for the job under the ADA because he lacks the required certification and did not ask the Federal Railroad Administration to review the denial.
Judge James Graves, an Obama nominee, dissented. He criticized the majority for essentially equating being qualified under the ADA with holding a certification under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. But the regulations implementing the ADA define being qualified as holding the skills and ability to do the job, either with or without a reasonable accommodation. Nothing in the record suggests Turner is not qualified to do the job. Turner’s allegation is that the railroad used a discriminatory test that unfairly denied him a certification he was qualified for.
Graves also criticized the majority for requiring Turner to exhaust his administrative remedies before going to court. He cited Fifth Circuit precedent that “no statute requires that an ADA plaintiff exhaust” remedies applicable under a different law for when railroad employees are inaccurately deemed not qualified.
As Graves pointed out, the majority decision “eliminat[es] the application of the ADA to employees who need some sort of certification from their employers.” The majority’s decision is binding precedent throughout the Fifth Circuit and harms people with disabilities in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
This ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.