FedEx accused by EEOC of sidelining, firing workers with disabilities
By Daniel Wiessner
Sept 6 (Reuters) -The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued FedEx on Friday, accusing the package delivery giant of placing disabled transport workers on unpaid leave or firing them if they were not "100% healed."
The lawsuit filed in Minnesota federal court accuses FedEx of disability discrimination against a nationwide class of ramp transport drivers, who carry cargo between airport ramps and terminals.
FedEx did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The EEOC claims that since at least 2019, FedEx has had a policy of requiring the drivers to be completely healed before returning to work, rather than granting them accommodations as required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
The commission said its investigation into FedEx stemmed from a complaint filed by a Minneapolis-based driver who claims she was fired in 2021 because she has chronic back pain. A Las Vegas-based driver who fractured her vertebrae in a work-related accident has been on unpaid leave since November 2022, according to the complaint.
Gregory Gochanour, the regional attorney for the EEOC's Chicago office, said "100% healed policies" cost workers their livelihoods without giving consideration to their specific circumstances.
“Under the ADA, employers have an obligation to explore reasonable accommodations and not to screen out qualified individuals with disabilities who can do their jobs," Gochanour said in a statement.
The lawsuit seeks backpay and other monetary damages for an unspecified number of workers affected by FedEx's alleged policy. The EEOC is also seeking an order requiring FedEx to overhaul its employment policies to comply with the ADA.
FedEx in 2020 paid $3.3 million to more than 220 deaf and hard of hearing people who the EEOC alleged were turned down for jobs or denied accommodations in violation of the ADA. FedEx denied wrongdoing in the settlement, which also required the company to provide pagers and package-scanning devices that use non-audible cues to employees with hearing issues.
The case is EEOC v. Federal Express Corp, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 0:24-cv-03559.
For the EEOC: Won Emma Heo and Jonathan Delozano
For FedEx: Not available
Read more:
FedEx pays $3.3 mln to settle claims that it discriminated against deaf workers
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
