Reported / Citable
Background
James Bien worked as a Union Pacific conductor until he failed color-vision tests in 2013. Union Pacific restricted him from jobs requiring color-signal recognition and removed him from his conductor position. It later hired him for a lower-paying management position.
In 2015, Union Pacific mistakenly administered another color-vision test, which Bien passed. After reviewing that result and his record, the railroad denied his request for a follow-up field test and reinstatement. Bien filed an administrative discrimination charge in April 2020 and sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act in January 2025.
Bien argued that the limitations period was tolled because he fell within the initial definition of a class asserted in an earlier action against Union Pacific. The district court held that a narrower class definition certified in 2019 excluded him, concluded that tolling had ended, and dismissed his suit as untimely under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit reversed. Under its American Pipe precedent, tolling continues for someone covered by an initial class definition unless a later definition unambiguously excludes that person. Exclusion must be sufficiently clear that a putative class member could recognize it without parsing technical linguistic distinctions.
Bien was not unambiguously excluded from the certified class. His 2015 vision test and Union Pacific’s formal review of that result plausibly subjected him to a fitness-for-duty examination resulting from a reportable health event. Union Pacific’s narrower readings of “examination” and “subject to” were not sufficiently indisputable to end tolling at the pleading stage.
The court remanded for further proceedings without deciding whether Bien exhausted his administrative remedies or whether his complaint otherwise stated a viable claim. It expressed no view on how the district court should resolve those issues.
Key Takeaways
- American Pipe tolling continues until a revised class definition unambiguously excludes a putative class member.
- A defendant’s plausible or even persuasive reading of a class definition is insufficient if the plaintiff offers a plausible reading that preserves membership.
- Technical distinctions between terms such as “evaluation” and “examination” generally cannot end tolling when exclusion would not be apparent to an uncounseled class member.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a demanding standard for ending class-action tolling in the Fifth Circuit. Putative class members need not file protective individual suits merely because revisions to a class definition arguably—but not unmistakably—exclude them.
The ruling revives Bien’s case only at the limitations stage. On remand, Union Pacific may still pursue its exhaustion and merits defenses, which the appellate court did not decide.