Federal Appeals Court Rules That UPS Must Hire Deaf Drivers

[Tom_Turner]

Actually, related to this, didn't UPS lose the case brought against it by the Clinton Admin and EEOC when it tried to dismiss (or not hire?) a driver with monocular (one eye) vision?

[Tom_Turner]

Just checking out the initial case where the UPS issue started.. the initial employee at least was determined to be in a "profoundly deaf" classification (or have "severe" hearing impairment according to the writer.....)

Reading further (but not included in the excerpt below) it seems the lighter vehicles and loads would in the rural ones in UPS' fleet... which is probably good news from a safety perspective if "deaf" drivers are eventually employed, although it is an internal issue for UPS since those are desired routes "bid" upon having to do with seniority & collective bargaining (I think).. The urban routes are apparently the heavier trucks and it is there I would imagine a larger safety issue might key ...

http://fleetowner.com/mag/fleet_deaf_safety_concerns/

<<
By Jim York

Jan 1, 2002 12:00 PM

The Fifth Circuit Court recently ruled on an Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination case filed by a part-time UPS warehouse worker who was denied employment as a package car driver. The Court's ruling — in favor of the worker — could have significant implications for employers who set stringent qualification standards or want to extend government safety standards beyond their intended scope.

The employee was severely hearing impaired, i.e., hearing tests rated her “profoundly deaf.” UPS denied her request for a driving job because she could not meet DOT's hearing qualification standards. She sued UPS under the provisions of ADA because she was applying for a position to drive a “non-DOT regulated” vehicle, which means a GVW of less than 10,000 lb., claiming that UPS failed to accommodate her disability. However, UPS requires that all of its drivers meet the more stringent DOT qualification standards. >>