SEARCH OHR


WHAT'S NEW?

User Forum
Health-related News
Training Sessions
Most Recent Tracker

FEATURES

Find a Provider
Resources
Free Guides
Tracker Journal
Protocols/Algorithms
Job Postings
 

SOFTWARE SUPPORT

SYSTOC Software
User Forum
Contact Information
Training Sessions
E-mail Questions

ABOUT OHR

Our History
Mission Statement
Business Philosophy
Employment
What Clients Say
Staff Directory
Directions & Map

EXTERNAL LINKS

Ohio Employee Health Partnership
OHROnline Meetings
OHRHelp Meetings
OHR University
Adobe Reader
 

Occupational Health News & Analysis  

9th Circuit Court Upholds UPS Driver Restrictions

[Posted 10/14/05] The 9th Circuit Court recently handed down a unanimous decision on the case of EEOC v. United Parcel Service (UPS). The case started when some partially blind workers for the Atlanta-based company filed a suit against UPS for denying them driving positions in small delivery trucks. Under the UPS vision protocol, drivers are required to have some central vision and some peripheral vision in each eye.

The 9th Circuit decided that although the employees were not disabled under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), they were disabled under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The court stressed that while the ADA requires that the employee's condition substantially limit a major life activity, the FEHA requires only that the employee's condition limit a major life activity. They also said that UPS satisfied the FEHA's safety-of-others defense. According to the court, the employer’s safety-of-others defense (Cal Gov't Code Section 12940(a) is valid because (1) the employer's vision protocol rested on objective and statistical evidence that monocular drivers were involved in somewhat more accidents than binocular drivers, (2) the risk of harm to others was high, (3) the employer's standard did not categorically exclude monocular individuals from working as full-time package car drivers, and (4) the application of the vision protocol was individualized to each employee and applicant.

On the same day the opinion on EEOC v. UPS was issued another three-judge appeals panel heard arguments in Bates v. UPS, 04-17295, a different disability case about allowing deaf drivers to drive small delivery trucks. U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson had ruled last year that the company's practice of excluding deaf drivers from operating trucks less than 10,000 pounds violated the federal ADA and ordered the company to change its policy within 30 days, but granted a request by UPS to delay execution of his ruling while the company appealed.

Employees with hearing or vision disabilities are limited in working as commercial delivery drivers, because they are excluded from any commercial driving position that requires Department of Transportation (DOT) or state certification when driving trucks weighing over 10,000 lbs, but companies can decide which drivers are qualified to operate lighter vehicles. Currently, the U.S. Postal Service and FedEx Corp. allow some deaf drivers to operate delivery vehicles that weigh less than 10,000 pounds.

[Comment: When examining drivers, it is important to note what standard is being used to determine ability to drive. Most clinic examinations fall under the DOT standards. Others, like these cases, do not and individual state laws may impact the decisions. William L. Newkirk, MD, FACPM]


Return to News Summary Page:
Occupational Health News & Analysis

 

 

   

Home | Contact Information | E-mail Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement