{"id":1093,"date":"2024-01-12T12:21:04","date_gmt":"2024-01-12T16:21:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1093"},"modified":"2024-01-12T12:21:04","modified_gmt":"2024-01-12T16:21:04","slug":"nebraska-federal-court-imposes-3-year-reporting-obligation-on-employer-after-eeoc-verdict-in-disability-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/01\/12\/nebraska-federal-court-imposes-3-year-reporting-obligation-on-employer-after-eeoc-verdict-in-disability-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Nebraska Federal Court Imposes 3-Year Reporting Obligation On Employer After EEOC Verdict In Disability Action"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Brittany M. Wunderlich, and Christian J. Palacios<\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>In EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC et al., Case No. 8:18-CV-462 (D. Neb. Jan. 10, 2024), U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard rejected<\/a> the EEOC\u2019s proposed injunctive relief \u2014 ordering the company to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (the \u201cADA\u201d) \u2014 and instead ordered defendants to report to the EEOC all job applications it receives from deaf truck drivers and whether the applicants are hired, among other information, on a semi-annual basis over a three-year period.\u00a0 This case illustrates how federal judges may use their discretion to fashion case-specific injunctive relief designed to prevent similar discrimination in the future. <\/em><\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Victor Robinson, a deaf commercial truck driver, applied to work for Drivers Management, LLC and Werner Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, \u201cWerner\u201d) in January of 2016.\u00a0 He was denied employment, despite having a commercial driver\u2019s license and an exemption for his hearing disability from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (the \u201cFMCSA\u201d), the federal agency responsible for regulating and providing safety oversight to commercial motor vehicles.\u00a0 The EEOC subsequently brought an enforcement lawsuit on the grounds that Werner discriminated against Robinson on the basis of his deafness.<\/p>\n

The Jury Trial<\/strong><\/p>\n

Werner claimed that it rejected Robinson\u2019s application for employment because it could not train inexperienced deaf drivers, like Robinson.\u00a0 Despite the federal government\u2019s approval and despite evidence that other trucking companies were able to train deaf drivers, Werner argued that Robinson, and other FMCSA hearing exemption holders, could not complete Werner\u2019s 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.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 2.<\/p>\n

In September 2023, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the EEOC after a trial. The jury rejected Werner\u2019s position finding that Robison was qualified and could have performed the essential functions of the job, if provided with a reasonable accommodation.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 3.\u00a0 The jury also determined that Werner acted with malice or reckless indifference towards Robinson\u2019s right not to be discriminated against on the basis of his deafness, and awarded substantial damages intended to punish Werner for its misconduct.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Order<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the Court\u2019s Order, Judge Gerrard considered whether the EEOC\u2019s requested injunctive relief was sufficient. In doing so, the Court concluded that the EEOC\u2019s request for an order that the defendants to end their discriminatory practices, provide reasonable accommodations to workers, and train employees on the ADA, did little more than \u201corder Werner to obey the law.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 11.\u00a0 Rather, the Court observed, \u201cthe scope of injunctive relief against continued discrimination should be designed to prevent similar misconduct, and must be related to the violation with which the defendants were originally charged.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>.\u00a0 Accordingly, the Court imposed semi-annual recording and reporting requirements on Werner (and its subsidiaries), requiring that they keep records of every hearing-impaired applicant that applied for an over-the-road 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 Werner for six months and, if not, the reason for the separation.\u00a0 The reporting obligation was imposed for a term of three years, after which the Court would convene a hearing to determine whether Werner complied with the order, and whether the injunction should be modified, extended, or terminated.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n

As this decision illustrates, federal judges have a wide degree of discretion to modify the relief sought by the EEOC, specifically with respect to injunctive relief. If a judge does not believe that the requested injunctive relief effectively prevents future discriminatory conduct, that judge is free to require the defendant employer comply with additional requirements, up-to and including mandatory reporting obligations to the EEOC.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Brittany M. Wunderlich, and Christian J. Palacios Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 In EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC et al., Case No. 8:18-CV-462 (D. Neb. Jan. 10, 2024), U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard rejected the EEOC\u2019s proposed injunctive relief \u2014 ordering the company to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Nebraska Federal Court Imposes 3-Year Reporting Obligation On Employer After EEOC Verdict In Disability Action”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1093"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}