221881P.pdf   05/19/2023  Perry Hopman  v.  Union Pacific Railroad
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-1881
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff, then a conductor 
   and now an engineer, brought this action after his request to bring his 
   Rottweiler service dog on board moving trains as an accommodation for his 
   PTSD and migraines was denied. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, 
   awarding compensatory damages, but not punitive damages. The district 
   court then granted defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, 
   concluding there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the 
   jury's verdict. Plaintiff appeals. At trial, plaintiff limited his 
   failure-to-accommodate claim to one section of the applicable EEOC 
   regulation - adjustments needed to permit him, an employee with a 
   disability, to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are 
   enjoyed by similarly situation employees without disabilities; thus, 
   whether plaintiff may have had a job performance claim is not before the 
   court; the benefits and privileges of employment do not include the 
   freedom to be free from mental or psychological pain; as a result, 
   permitting a service dog at work so that an employee with a disability has 
   the same mental health assistance the service dog provides away from work 
   is not a cognizable benefit or privilege of employment, and the district 
   court did not err in granting defendant's motion for judgment as a matter 
   of law.