Strafford, Mo.-based Wilson Logistics is embroiled in a federal discrimination lawsuit for refusing to consider the employment of a deaf truck driver.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit against Wilson Logistics over violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allegedly, the trucking company denied an employment opportunity to a qualified truck driver, who is deaf.
The deaf truck driver involved in the case has held a medical waiver from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration since 2021. In addition to possessing a CDL, the man had prior experience as a truck driver, qualifying him for a driver job opening at Wilson Logistics.
In January 2023, the truck driver contacted Wilson Logistics’ job-recruiting number via video relay service. The relay interpreter informed the company representative that she was calling on behalf of the driver. However, the company representative stated that Wilson could not accept an applicant who is deaf.
“I cannot bring somebody in who does not read, write and speak English,” the representative said, according to court documents. “It’s a DOT requirement.”
The truck driver let the Wilson Logistics representative know he had a valid CDL and experience as a trucker. He was told that the company “cannot bring in somebody who does sign language” because “it’s one of our requirements.”
At the time of the call, Wilson Logistics was recruiting truck drivers and promptly filled those vacancies. The deaf truck driver had no opportunity to even apply for those positions.
According to the lawsuit, Wilson Logistics’ job application for drivers asks, “Do you read, write and speak English?” However, the application has no way for deaf truck drivers to indicate they use sign language, nor does it allow drivers to show they hold a Department of Transportation waiver.
The driver submitted a complaint to the EEOC, allowing Wilson Logistics to address the issue without involving the court. However, no resolution was reached, leading to the subsequent lawsuit filing.
The EEOC is asking the federal court to stop Wilson Logistics from rejecting deaf truck drivers. The agency is requesting the company compensate the driver by providing backpay and non-economic damages, as well as that it extend a conditional offer of employment. Furthermore, the EEOC seeks a court order for the trucking company to implement the following:
- Policies that ensure equal employment opportunities for disabled individuals, aiming to eliminate the impact of previous and ongoing illegal employment practices
- Job applications that ensure equal employment opportunities for disabled persons
- A training program on Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination laws that includes an explanation of FMCSA’s driver qualification exemption
“An employer cannot refuse to consider a job applicant because of a disability without conducting an individualized inquiry,” Melinda Dugas, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District, said in a statement. “The EEOC will continue to litigate cases in which qualified individuals with disabilities are summarily dismissed from the application process.”
EEOC case against Werner
The lawsuit against Wilson Logistics is similar to the EEOC’s complaint against Werner Enterprises involving a truck driver, who is deaf.
In that case, the lawsuit started as a single discrimination claim filed by a deaf truck driver with a CDL and an FMCSA medical waiver. However, the EEOC uncovered Werner’s policy of refusing to hire deaf drivers. During the trial, Werner’s vice president of safety and compliance testified that the company continues to deny job opportunities to hearing-impaired drivers.
A federal jury awarded the driver $75,000 in compensatory damages and $36 million in punitive damages. That was significantly reduced in January, as federal law limits the amount of punitive damages in EEOC discrimination cases to $300,000.
Additionally, Werner must submit reports regarding hiring practices for deaf truck drivers. The company must submit a report every six months for the next three years.
An appeal of the final judgment is pending in the Eighth Circuit court. LL
Credit: Source link
