Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
511 F. 3d 974, 20 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29870 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer's safety-based qualification standard that screens out individuals with disabilities must be proven by the employer to be job-related, consistent with business necessity, and that performance cannot be achieved with reasonable accommodation. The stricter 'bona fide occupational qualification' (BFOQ) standard from other anti-discrimination laws does not apply to the ADA's business necessity defense.
Facts:
- United Parcel Service (UPS) requires all applicants for its package-car driver positions to pass a specific hearing standard set by the Department of Transportation (DOT).
- This DOT hearing standard is only federally mandated for drivers of commercial vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,001 pounds or more.
- UPS's fleet includes approximately 5,900 vehicles with a GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds, which are not subject to the federal DOT mandate.
- UPS applied its policy to all driver applicants, regardless of the size of the vehicle they would operate.
- A class of hearing-impaired UPS employees and applicants, represented by Bates, could not meet the DOT hearing standard.
- Named plaintiff Barbaranti Oloyede and class member Elias Habib were hearing-impaired, had clean driving records, and met other threshold requirements for the driver position but were not hired because they could not pass the hearing test.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric Bates, on behalf of a class of hearing-impaired individuals, sued United Parcel Service (UPS) in federal district court, alleging violations of the ADA and California state laws.
- The district court certified a nationwide class for the ADA claim.
- Following a bench trial on liability, the district court found UPS liable on all claims.
- The district court concluded that UPS's blanket hearing standard violated the ADA because UPS failed to prove it was a 'business necessity.'
- The district court issued a permanent injunction ordering UPS to stop using the blanket DOT hearing standard for lighter vehicles and to perform individualized assessments of applicants.
- UPS filed an interlocutory appeal of the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's blanket application of a safety qualification standard violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it screens out qualified individuals with disabilities for jobs not covered by a government mandate, unless the employer proves the standard is job-related and consistent with business necessity?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge McKeown
Yes, an employer's blanket application of such a safety qualification standard violates the ADA unless the employer can prove its business necessity. The court established a new framework for analyzing such cases. First, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving they are a 'qualified individual'—that is, they can perform the job's essential functions (such as 'safe driving') with or without reasonable accommodation. Second, if the plaintiff meets this burden, the employer must then prove its qualification standard is defensible as a 'business necessity.' This requires the employer to show the standard is 1) job-related, 2) consistent with business necessity, and 3) that job performance cannot be accomplished by a reasonable accommodation. The court explicitly overruled its prior decision in Morton v. UPS, which had improperly imported the stricter 'bona fide occupational qualification' (BFOQ) standard from Title VII into the ADA analysis. Because the district court applied the wrong legal standards, its decision is vacated and the case is remanded for re-evaluation under this new framework.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Judge Berzon
Yes, but the majority's approach to determining if an applicant is 'qualified' is flawed. While I agree with the new 'business necessity' framework and the need to remand, the plaintiffs should not be required to prove they can already safely drive a UPS package car. The legal injury is being denied the opportunity to compete for the job. Therefore, plaintiffs should only have to demonstrate that they meet the threshold requirements to enter UPS's driver training and assessment program, just like any other applicant. It is within that program that UPS can and should determine if an individual can drive safely.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the analytical framework for ADA cases involving employer qualification standards that screen out disabled individuals. By overruling Morton, the Ninth Circuit eliminated the confusing importation of the Title VII BFOQ standard and established a clear, three-part test for the business necessity defense rooted directly in the ADA's statutory text. This holding places a distinct burden on employers to empirically justify their safety standards, while still requiring plaintiffs to first make a threshold showing that they can perform the job's essential functions. The case provides a roadmap for future litigation over facially discriminatory safety policies, emphasizing individualized assessment over blanket exclusions.
