According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, an experienced truck driver applied with Jordan Carriers for a flatbed truck driver position and was offered the position contingent upon completion of a pre-employment screening. During the screening, the driver told the examiner he had suffered a back injury 14 years ago. A company employee then told him he would not be allowed to complete the remainder of the medical exam because his past medical history rendered him ineligible for hire. The EEOC alleges the driver was fully capable of performing the duties of position, but the company denied him the job because it regarded him as disabled or because of his record of a disability. Failure to hire an individual because of a perceived or past disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination in employment because of disability.
Hiland Dairy Foods, a Missouri-based producer and distributor of dairy products, violated federal law when it refused to hire a man to work in its Norman, Okla., plant because he was vision-impaired, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Thursday.
According to the suit, Hiland interviewed the man, toured the plant with him, and was aware of his vision impairment before it offered him a Dairy Plant Worker position conditioned on passing a pre-employment medical exam. The doctor responsible for administering the exam disqualified him, deeming him a “safety concern” despite never having examined him. Neither Hiland nor the doctor considered whether any assistive devices or other reasonable accommodations could mitigate any potential safety concerns. Hiland then withdrew the job offer.
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky, a component of the United States Department of Justice (“United States”), opened an investigation of the dentistry practice pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189. The United States initiated its investigation upon the receipt of a complaint from an individual regarding lack of accessibility at the dentistry practice.
The complaint was filed by an individual whose daughter has a disability that requires use of a wheelchair. The complainant alleged that she was unable to park in the dentistry practice’s parking lot because there was no designated accessible parking spot and that she had to pull her daughter up the steps to enter the dentistry practice because the building did not have an accessible entrance. The complainant also alleged that she would have been charged a fee to reschedule or cancel the appointment.