FedEx Cannot Exclude Diabetic Applicant From Mechanic Position Based on Need to Test Drive Trucks


The Americans with Disabilities Act contains a provision allowing exclusion of disabled persons from jobs when their medical condition contradicts federal licensing requirements. In practice, this exclusion has applied most frequently to interstate truck drivers with medical conditions that disqualify them from Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs) under DOT regulations. Last month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that this exception does not apply to a truck mechanic who may be asked to test drive vehicles under repair.

In Samson v. FedEx, the plaintiff applied for a job as a mechanic, but was rejected after his diabetes prevented him from obtaining a CDL. He sued, claiming ADA discrimination. FedEx argued that test driving trucks was an essential function of the job because it was indispensable to the mechanic’s ability to diagnose problems and confirm that they have been resolved. The district court agreed, dismissing the claim on summary judgment.

In a 2-1 decision, the Eleventh Circuit rejected this reasoning, remanding the claim for a jury trial. The court found two flaws with the employer’s reasoning. First, the Eleventh Circuit questioned whether a CDL was in fact required for test drives that would not take place on public roads. Second, the court found that such driving took a miniscule amount of the mechanic’s time, and that these functions could easily be distributed to other CDL drivers. In other words, the court concluded that driving was not an essential function of the mechanic position.

Employers relying on the regulatory exemption to the ADA should take steps to assure that the licensing requirement applies to an essential job function. They should analyze the job in question and prepare a written job description that clearly demonstrates how the licensing requirement applies to performance of the job. Licenses that would have a tangential impact on job performance should not be used as the basis for rejecting otherwise qualified candidates for employment.

Written by:

Published In:


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.