En banc 8th Circuit tosses former UPS driver's disability lawsuit

Discussion in 'The Latest UPS Headlines' started by cheryl, May 15, 2018.

  1. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    En banc 8th Circuit tosses former UPS driver's disability lawsuit - Reuters

    A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a lawsuit from a former driver for United Parcel Service of America Inc accusing the shipping giant of failing to accommodate his disability.

    Partially reversing a three-judge panel’s prior decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 6-3 ruling that Jerry Faidley was unqualified for a “feeder driver” job that was less physically demanding than his previous position as a matter of law because he could not perform the essential functions of that job. The Americans with Disabilities Act did not require UPS to offer him a position for which he was unqualified, the en banc panel said.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  2. Mugarolla

    Mugarolla Light 'em up!

    You would think that a site like Reuters would get the story correct.

    This is what the court actually said.

    Faidley claims to have been qualified to perform the jobs of feeder driver and delivery driver in 2012. The district court correctly concluded as a matter of law that Faidley was not qualified to perform the essential job functions for the delivery driver position.

    The court went on to say...

    We conclude, however, that the district court erred by determining as a matter of law that Faidley was unable to perform the essential job functions of the feeder driver position.
     
  3. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    I hope this driver wins his case.
    The company is ruthless when it comes to injured drivers trying to make it to retirement.

    I would be interested in knowing what "essential function" the driver allegedly couldn't perform.
     
  4. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    Mug-
    Feel free to PM me.
     
  5. oldngray

    oldngray nowhere special

    It pretty much boils down to whether it was one of the companies favorites. They "can" create a special job for someone but they don't have to. If the driver is physically unable to do a bid job he will probably lose his case. It looks like Reuters got feeder and package car drivers mixed up in their story confusing everyone though.
     
  6. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    It also depends on whose definition of "essential function" the court chooses to believe.
     
  7. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    What are the "essential functions" of a job? | ADA National Network

    The first notation suggests the employer, in part, can choose which parts of the job are "essential". Sounds arbitrary and capricious to me.
     
  8. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    You can bet the job description for "feeder driver" is being rewritten as you read this post.
     
  9. oldngray

    oldngray nowhere special

    Might be about ability to pass the physical and get a DOT card.

    No DOT card equals no driving.
     
  10. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    Yard shifter doesn't require a DOT card.
     
  11. Mugarolla

    Mugarolla Light 'em up!

    His Dr. had him on an 8 hour work restriction due to his injury. The Court agreed that a package car driver may have to work up to 9 1/2 hours, so he couldn't perform the "essential function".
     
  12. Mugarolla

    Mugarolla Light 'em up!

    HR Screwed this one up. The HR guy agreed that Faidley could perform the essential job functions of a feeder driver.

    Faidley referred in his affidavit to “the required 9.5 hours per day for that position.” Human resources manager Vince Blood wrote on a 2012 accommodation worksheet, however, that Faidley “preliminarily appear[ed] capable of performing the essential job functions” of the feeder driver role. On the same form, he wrote that Faidley could work no more than eight hours per day. We conclude that is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on Faidley's claim that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the feeder driver position.
     
  13. TearsInRain

    TearsInRain IE boogeyman

    i don’t get how stuff like this makes it to court

    couldn’t they have just given him a PT air or shifter job?
    it’s not like we can’t always use more of those
     
  14. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    Is it because your homies in management feel the need to strut their stuff and, by God, exert control?
     
  15. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    "May" and "might" doesn't mean essential to the job and should not apply. Research the language on this.

    In the 35+ years I've been around do you think I've seen and heard and researched some things?
     
  16. TearsInRain

    TearsInRain IE boogeyman

    nah probably just the driver being a lazy teamster

    bet he stole some packages too (they all do lol)
     
  17. Mugarolla

    Mugarolla Light 'em up!

    Sorry, wrong choice of words. A package car driver can be required to work up to 9 1/2 hours.

    Better?
     
  18. Mugarolla

    Mugarolla Light 'em up!

    They let him work inside. He did not like it.
     
  19. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    For reasons that don't matter, I'm on your side. I'm trying to help the guy but if you know him personally then anything I say is a moot point but...

    my degree isn't in English but it seems to me that "may", "might" and "can" don't sound/mean the same as "shall".

    I'm trying to find out what the job descriptions say...before they were rewritten. I'm sure his attorney is interested also.
     
  20. trickpony1

    trickpony1 Well-Known Member

    When they let him work inside was it for 8 hours or 5?
    I hope his attorney is all over this.