physical qualification standards. Id. The court rejected Werner ’ s argument. It reasoned that the training document instructed recruiters to treat hearing-impaired applicants differently from other applicants. Id. at *4-5. Subsequently, Werner filed a motion to reconsider the denial of its motion for summary judgment. The court denied Werner ’ s motion for reconsideration. In Werner ’ s motion for summary judgment, it asserted that the EEOC ’ s claim of a “facially discriminatory” hiring policy could only be based on a single training document without considering other evidence. In its motion to reconsider, Werner pivoted and argued that the court erred by considering what might be shown by evidence beyond the face of the training document. Id. at *5-6. The court reasoned that applicable case law authorities consider whether the policy is discriminatory on its face, but this inquiry is not dispositive of the entire claim. The court also opined that the EEOC could demonstrate discriminatory intent through other evidence if the policy is not discriminatory on its face. Id. at *8. The court also noted that the policy at issue was facially discriminatory , i.e., “even if a policy isn ’ t discriminatory on its face (which, to reiterate, this document is )” in light of Werner ’ s assertion. Id. The court rejected Werner ’ s argument that the EEOC ’ s claim of a facially discriminatory hiring policy was based exclusively on the training document itself. First, the court explained the basics of a discrimination claim require that the EEOC must show, among other things, an adverse employment action because of disability. Second, the court explained that discriminatory intent can be proved either through direct evidence of discrimination, or through a showing of disparate treatment. Id. at *6. As to this point, the court clarified there is direct evidence of discrimination when the “evidence shows a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient to reasonably support a finding that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action.” Id. The court held that Werner ’ s training document evidenced disparate treatment, but the effect of that treatment, if any, occurred after the applications from hearing-impaired drivers were diverted to the “manager basket.” Id. at *9. The court also found the EEOC was not bound by its pleading to rely exclusively on the face of the training document to support its claim. Id. Finally, the court determined the disputed issue for the parties to focus on was whether accommodating a hearing- impaired placement driver is reasonable. Id. at *10-11. Therefore, the court denied Werner ’ s motion to reconsider the denial of Werner ’ s motion for summary judgment.
40
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online