UPS driver asks SCOTUS to take up ADA reasonable accommodation question

Take heed to the article
3 min

This audio is auto-generated. Please tell us if in case you have suggestions.

Dive Transient:

• A UPS driver requested the U.S. Supreme Courtroom Sept. 15 to determine whether or not the corporate’s transfer to put him on unpaid depart to accommodate his incapacity, reasonably than present modified tools the motive force requested for, violated the People with Disabilities Act.
• The case, Hannah v. United Parcel Service, Inc., is on attraction from the 4th U.S. Circuit Courtroom of Appeals, which dominated in favor of UPS in July. The court docket held that UPS correctly concluded it couldn’t grant the motive force’s most popular lodging and that non permanent unpaid depart is an affordable lodging underneath the ADA.
• A respondent transient in opposition to the petition is due Oct. 19, in response to the Supreme Courtroom’s web site.

Dive Perception:

Within the petition for writ of certiorari, the worker argued the 4th Circuit erred when it concluded his request for a smaller truck to accommodate his sacroiliitis didn’t appropriately take into account his job necessities. This “confused the tools Petitioner used to carry out the job with the job’s manufacturing requirements,” the worker stated.

The worker additional argued that his request for a distinct car wouldn’t have resulted in a violation of UPS’ collective bargaining settlement, nor wouldn’t it have redefined his important job features. To that finish, the 4th Circuit conflated modification of apparatus with important job features; “No such present precedent from this Courtroom helps this outcome, which eviscerates the modification of apparatus as an affordable lodging,” the worker stated.

In its choice, the 4th Circuit famous that UPS decided that the worker’s route required using a bigger truck, specifically one with a 600-cubic-foot capability to hold packages. Although the worker stated the stiff suspension of such bigger vans aggravated his accidents, UPS maintained {that a} smaller car “would have inadequate capability to serve his route.” The corporate allowed him to retain his job and take unpaid depart till he may return to work.

The worker disputed UPS’ reasoning, writing to the Supreme Courtroom that the corporate’s designated consultant “couldn’t recall any documentation to help that Respondent mentioned what number of packages a smaller van may maintain … Nor did Respondent present any research, evaluation or different documentation for its protection that Petitioner wouldn’t have been capable of full his deliveries with a smaller truck.”