The Eighth Circuit in Faidley v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., No. 16-1073 (8th Cir. May 11, 2018), affirmed the dismissal of a UPS driver’s claim that UPS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), where UPS terminated his employment because he was medically restricted to an 8-hour work day. The Eighth Circuit held that overtime was an “essential function” of the UPS job.
Plaintiff, a UPS package car delivery driver, with multiple physical ailments due to a back injury and a degenerative hip condition, was told by a doctor that he was restricted to eight-hour work days. UPS generally requires that drivers be available for overtime work, up to 9.5 hours per day. When the plaintiff informed his station manager of the limitation, he was allegedly told that “UPS won’t allow anybody to work with a permanent restriction.” The company suggested that he look within the company for other jobs to which he could be transferred, but after finding a few that he liked, was told that they were all unavailable.
The plaintiff filed a complaint against UPS alleging that UPS’s failure to accommodate his 8-hour work restriction was a violation of the ADA. The ADA bars private employers from discriminating against a “qualified individual on the basis of disability.” A “qualified individual” is a person who, with or without, reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that he holds or desires.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s ADA claim because it held that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because he could not perform the essential functions of the employment (i.e. overtime):
In moving for summary judgment on this issue, UPS explained that overtime is an essential function of the package car driver position because daily package car workloads can increase unpredictably, particularly during the year-end holiday busy season, and drivers encounter unpredictable weather conditions while completing their routes. If a driver is unable to deliver all the packages in his vehicle within eight hours, and is restricted from working overtime, other drivers must be sent to finish the deliveries, or packages will not be timely delivered; either alternative adversely affects UPS’s business.
The Eighth Circuit also held that UPS followed the regulations of the ADA by offering the plaintiff reasonable positions even though they weren’t the plaintiff’s first choice. The plaintiff and UPS met and found positions in which the plaintiff was interested, however, when he applied he was informed that there were either no vacancies or that he lacked seniority for the position.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/16-1073/16-1073-2018-05-11.html
This article was written by Ryan Hansen, Law Clerk
