EEOC challenges verdict in favor of trucking company in discrimination lawsuit

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is challenging a federal jury verdict that ruled in favor of Western Distributing Co. in a disabilities discrimination lawsuit over employees taking medical leave.

In a motion for retrial, EEOC is arguing that the jury found Western Distributing’s “full-duty” policy existed. Calling the policy intrinsically discriminatory, the EEOC argues that a new trial or altered judgment is warranted.

In January, a jury ruled in favor of Western Distributing on two of three claims: failure to accommodate disabilities and employment opportunities. However, the jury found that EEOC did prove the claim of disparate impact.

By proving disparate impact, EEOC argues, the jury proved the existence of the full-duty policy.

Western Distributing’s full-duty policy

At the heart of the case is Western Distributing’s full-duty policy.

According to court documents, the company is accused of having a “maximum-leave” practice that terminates employees who are unable return to work prior to or upon expiration of approved medical leave of 12 weeks or less. The policy required employees who are off work for medical reasons to receive a full-duty medical clearance prior to returning to work. Employees who could return to work with accommodations were not allowed to do so, and employees were discharged upon expiration of medical leave, regardless of whether they could have returned with some accommodation.

According to the lawsuit, Western Distributing denied employees’ request for an extension on their medical leave, regardless of how short the extension was. Western also denied requests for accommodations.

The requirement of “full duty” to return to work denied employees the opportunity to work with medical restrictions. A discharge determination was made without a process that could determine if the employee could perform essential function of the job or to discuss potential reasonable accommodations.

EEOC’s argument

EEOC argues that because the full-duty policy is “per se discriminatory,” proving its existence proves the two claims of which Western Distributing was absolved.

In its motion for a retrial, EEOC points out that since the mid-1990s, federal courts have consistently held that policies like Western Distributing’s full-duty policy violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“While courts most commonly use the terms ‘fully healed’ or ‘100% healed’ and not ‘full duty,’ the distinction is semantic and not substantive – a policy like Western’s that requires employees to return to work without restrictions violates the ADA,” EEOC argued in its motion.

As of, March 7, the court had not ruled on EEOC’s motion. LL