EEOC Litigation Review – 2025

issues of material fact regarding whether Poulson’s request for remote work was reasonable and whether TSS’s denial was reasonable. Accordingly, the court denied both parties’ motions regarding the failure-to- accommodate claim. The court reasoned that there is a “difference between a general policy that applies to all employees and an appropriate and reasonable accommodation that could overcome the precise limitations resulting from an employee’s disability.” Id. at *20. In the absence of a specific effort to accommodate Poulson’s disability, the court opined that summary judgment could not be granted. Second, as to the constructive discharge claim, the court granted summary judgment. It explained that TSS “was not responsible for the severe and pervasive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Id. at *27. Consequently, there was nothing about its decisions as to remote work that would support an inference that the decision was made with the intent to force Poulson to resign. However, the court granted TSS’s motion on the retaliation claim, holding that TSS did not engage in retaliation against Poulson by requiring her to engage in work-related tasks and co-worker interactions while on FMLA leave in potential violation of her FMLA rights. The court explained that “there is no real distinction between ‘excluding’ [Poulson] from her requested accommodation and ‘failing to accommodate’ her request.” Id. at *30. In essence, this claim was more properly brought under an ADA discrimination theory. With these rulings adopted, the court allowed the ADA discrimination claim to be decided by a jury but dismissed the rest of the EEOC’s claims. In EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC, Case No. 18-CV-462 (D. Neb. Jan. 10, 2024), the court imposed a three-year reporting obligation on Drivers Management, LLC after a jury returned a verdict in favor of the EEOC. Victor Robinson, a deaf commercial truck driver, applied to work for the Drivers and Werner Enterprises, Inc. (Werner). Drivers denied Robinson employment, despite him having a commercial driver’s license and an exemption for his hearing disability under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (the FMCSA), the federal agency responsible for regulating and providing safety oversight to commercial motor vehicles. The EEOC subsequently brought an enforcement lawsuit on the grounds that Werner discriminated against Robinson on the basis of his deafness. The defendants claimed that it rejected Robinson’s application for employment because it could not train inexperienced deaf drivers, like Robinson. Despite the FMCSA’s exemption and evidence that other trucking companies were able to train deaf drivers, the defendants argued that Robinson, and other FMCSA hearing exemption holders, could not complete Werner’s training program, which required drivers with less than 6 months of experience to drive alongside a trainer on a real over-the-road trucking route, due to safety concerns. In September 2023, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the EEOC. The jury rejected the defendants’ defenses, finding that Robison was qualified and could have performed the essential functions of the job, if the defendants’ provided reasonable accommodations. Id. at 3. The jury also determined that the defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference towards Robinson’s disability and awarded punitive damages to punish Werner for its misconduct. Id. After the jury verdict, the court considered whether the EEOC’s requested injunctive relief was reasonable, as the EEOC requested the defendants end their discriminatory practices, provide reasonable accommodations to workers, and train employees on the ADA. The court ordered the defendants to institute semi-annual recording and reporting requirements, inclusive of record-keeping for: every hearing-impaired applicant that applied for truck-driving position; the date of the application; whether the applicant was hired; when the employment decision was communicated to the applicant; the basis for declining to hire the applicant; and whether the applicant remained employed with the defendants for six months and, if not, the reason for the separation. The court ordered this reporting obligation for a term of three years, after which the court would determine whether the defendants complied with the reporting obligation order, and whether the injunction should be modified, extended, or terminated. The Fifth Circuit declined to revive an EEOC lawsuit alleging that U.S. Drug Mart, Inc., a Texas pharmacy, created a hostile work environment under the ADA in EEOC v. U.S. Drug Mart Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 384 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2024). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of charging party, David Calzada (Calzada), a pharmacy technician, who suffered from asthma, and elected to wear a face mask to work on March 26, 2020. However, after arrival, the store manager informed Calzada that mask-wearing violated the pharmacy’s policy, and instead of removing his mask, Calzada left for the day. Id. at *2. A few days later, when Calzada returned to work, his supervisors about-faced and informed him that the pharmacy’s polices were updated and that he was now permitted to wear a mask and gloves at work. Id. After being belittled by his supervisor, by being identified as a “stupid little kid,” Calzada quit. Id. The EEOC claimed that U.S. Drug Mart created a hostile work environment and constructively discharged Calzada based on the conduct of the store manager and his supervisor. Id. U.S. Drug Mart previously moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, stating “an isolated instance of verbal harassment is generally not sufficient to support a hostile work environment

EEOC Litigation Review - 2025

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online