Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Schneider National, Inc.
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6454, 19 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 100, 481 F.3d 507 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) 'regarded as' disabled provision by terminating an employee with a medical condition if the decision is based on the employer's own specific, heightened risk aversion, rather than a mistaken belief that the employee's condition substantially limits them in the major life activity of working in a broad range of jobs.
Facts:
- Jerome Hoefner was an experienced truck driver for Schneider National, Inc., having received an award for driving one million miles without an avoidable accident.
- Shortly after receiving the award, Hoefner experienced a fainting spell and was diagnosed with neurocardiogenic syncope, a condition that can cause a sudden loss of consciousness.
- Hoefner's condition was treatable with medication and did not prevent him from meeting the minimum safety standards required by federal law for commercial truck drivers.
- Two years prior, another Schneider driver named Michael Kupsky, who had the same condition, was killed after driving his truck off a bridge.
- Following Kupsky's death, Schneider implemented a 'zero tolerance' policy of not employing any driver with neurocardiogenic syncope.
- Citing this policy and the perceived risk, Schneider terminated Hoefner's employment.
- After being fired by Schneider, Hoefner obtained a similar truck driving job with another company that was aware of his medical condition.
Procedural Posture:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on behalf of Jerome Hoefner against Schneider National, Inc. in U.S. District Court (trial court).
- The EEOC alleged that Schneider violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by firing Hoefner because it mistakenly regarded him as disabled.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Schneider.
- The EEOC, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Schneider as the appellee.
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 violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating a truck driver with a medical condition based on its own heightened safety standards and risk aversion, even if the driver meets federal safety standards and is not precluded from working in a broad range of jobs?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No, an employer does not violate the ADA by acting on its own heightened sense of risk aversion. Schneider's decision to terminate Hoefner was not based on a mistaken belief or stereotype about his condition, but on a specific, business-driven aversion to the risk of a driver fainting, particularly after the prior fatal accident involving driver Kupsky. The court distinguished between an employer's assessment of risk and its perception of disability; an employer is free to decide that medical conditions that do not rise to the level of a disability under the ADA still present an unacceptable risk for its specific operations. Furthermore, to state a 'regarded as' claim based on the major life activity of working, the EEOC needed to show that Schneider believed Hoefner was precluded from a 'broad range of jobs,' not just the specific job of driving for Schneider. The fact that Hoefner immediately found a similar job elsewhere demonstrates that he was not perceived as unable to work as a truck driver in general. Therefore, Schneider did not regard him as having an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the boundary between permissible, risk-averse employment policies and unlawful disability discrimination under the ADA's 'regarded as' provision. It empowers employers, especially in safety-sensitive industries, to establish internal safety standards that are stricter than federal minimums without automatically incurring ADA liability. The ruling reinforces that a 'regarded as' claim requires proof that the employer perceived the employee as unable to perform a broad class of jobs, not just a single, specific position. Consequently, this case narrows the scope for plaintiffs in 'regarded as' cases by distinguishing an employer's subjective risk tolerance from a discriminatory belief about an individual's capabilities.
