Overview LENAHAN, et al. v. SEARS ROEBUCK CO. SINGLETON v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MOLIERI v. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT LOPEZ v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CAMPOS v. SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY FUSCO et. al. v. AMERICAN AIRLINES SATCHELL et. al. v. FEDEX Pharmacist Litigation HMO Employee Litigation BATES v. UPS University of California

BATES v. UPS

Situation
UPS systematically discriminated against deaf employees, by refusing to consider them for driving positions on the basis of their disability. The lawsuit was brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by five deaf UPS workers on behalf of deaf employees and applicants throughout the country. It was the first workplace discrimination and ADA class action suit brought on behalf of deaf workers nationwide.

Summary
The case challenged discriminatory employment practices by UPS. Such practices included the company’s failure and refusal to provide qualified sign language interpreters for interviews, training, and staff and safety meetings -- as well as UPS’s failure to promote deaf workers beyond entry level and part-time positions. Many class members testified that their hearing co-workers, who were hired at the same time or after they were hired, had been driving for years while the deaf employees toiled in low-level manual labor positions year after year. UPS’s defense focused on the notion that people who are deaf are inherently unsafe drivers, an argument not borne out by either the factual evidence or the expert testimony. Moreover, while there are restrictions on the level of hearing required for driving work involving vehicles that weigh over 10,001 pounds, the driving work at issue concerned vehicles weighing less than 10,001 lbs.

Result
The trial court found UPS’s position untenable, given the company’s inability to present any evidence that people who are deaf pose any greater risk than non-deaf drivers. The court concluded that UPS had not met its burden to justify the complete ban it imposed on deaf people, which prohibited them from holding driving positions. The court noted that deaf individuals who meet UPS’s threshold requirements cannot be categorically excluded and must instead be permitted to proceed through the company’s regular processes for becoming a package-car driver, with reasonable accommodations provided to them as needed.

UPS agreed to a landmark $5.8 million settlement related to the part of the case that alleged unequal terms and conditions of employment. However, UPS continues to refuse to allow its deaf employees to drive any UPS vehicle. In 2005, after an eight-month trial, Judge Thelton Henderson found that UPS’s “no deaf drivers” policy violates the ADA. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the trial court’s opinion and sent the case back for retrial. Schneider Wallace expects to retry the case in early 2009.