{"id":563,"date":"2023-06-05T18:15:25","date_gmt":"2023-06-05T22:15:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=563"},"modified":"2023-06-05T18:15:25","modified_gmt":"2023-06-05T22:15:25","slug":"nebraska-federal-court-allows-eeoc-initiated-ada-lawsuit-to-proceed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/06\/05\/nebraska-federal-court-allows-eeoc-initiated-ada-lawsuit-to-proceed\/","title":{"rendered":"Nebraska Federal Court Allows EEOC-Initiated ADA Lawsuit To Proceed"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and George J. Schaller<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/strong>In EEOC v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00329, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95981 (D. Neb. May 31, 2023), a federal district court in Nebraska denied<\/a> an employer\u2019s partial motion to reconsider the Court\u2019s prior denial of its motion for summary judgment, holding that facially discriminatory policies can be demonstrated through evidence other than hiring policy documents.<\/em><\/p>\n

For employers facing EEOC-initiated lawsuits involving ADA claims in the hiring process, this decision is instructive in terms of the evidence courts will consider at the summary judgment stage, particularly training documents that may be discriminatory on their face.<\/p>\n

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

The EEOC filed suit on behalf of a hearing-impaired truck driver applicant (the \u201cClaimant\u201d) who submitted an application with Defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc. (\u201cWerner\u201d).\u00a0 The Claimant, along with other hearing-impaired applicants, allegedly were subject to a different workflow for applications. The EEOC claimed an internal training document provided by Werner instructed its recruiters to provide a different workflow for applications from hearing-impaired drivers \u2013 if the recruiter was \u201caware of an FMCSA waiver or a hearing issue, then the recruiter was directed \u2018do not Pre-Approve the application.\u2019\u201d Id.<\/em> at *3. Instead, the recruiter would send the hearing-impaired applicants completed application \u201cto the manager basket,\u201d and management would decide to move forward or not. Id.<\/em> Therefore, the EEOC contended Werner\u2019s pre-approval procedure adversely affected hearing-impaired applicants.<\/p>\n

After the Claimant filed an administrative charge, and the EEOC ultimately filed a lawsuit on his behalf, Werner moved for summary judgment. It argued that its training document at issue \u201cdoes not unlawfully classify applicants because of their disability.\u201d Id.<\/em> at *4. Instead, Werner maintained diverting applications from hearing-impaired applicants was to verify that an applicant had a valid exemption from physical qualification standards. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Court rejected Werner\u2019s argument and reasoned that the training document does instruct recruiters to treat hearing-impaired applicants differently from other applicants. Id. <\/em>at *4-5. Subsequently, Werner filed a motion to reconsider the denial of its motion for summary judgment.<\/p>\n

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

The Court denied Werner\u2019s motion for reconsideration.<\/p>\n

In Werner\u2019s motion for summary judgment, it asserted that the EEOC\u2019s claim of a \u201cfacially discriminatory\u201d hiring policy could only be based on a single training document without considering other evidence. \u00a0<\/em>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. <\/em>at *5-6.\u00a0\u00a0The 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. <\/em>at *8.\u00a0 The Court also noted that the policy at issue was facially discriminatory \u2013 \u201ceven if a policy isn\u2019t discriminatory on its face (which, to reiterate, this document is.<\/em>)\u201d in light of Werner\u2019s assertion. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Court rejected Werner\u2019s argument that the EEOC\u2019s claim of a facially discriminatory hiring policy was based exclusively on the training document itself. \u00a0First, the Court explained the basics of a discrimination claim require 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. <\/em>at *6.\u00a0 As to this point, the Court clarified there is direct evidence of discrimination when the \u201cevidence 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.\u201d Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Court held that Werner\u2019s 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 \u201cmanager basket.\u201d \u00a0Id. <\/em>at *9. \u00a0\u00a0The 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. \u00a0Id. \u00a0<\/em>Finally, the Court determined the disputed issue for the parties to focus on is whether accommodating a hearing-impaired placement driver is reasonable. \u00a0Id. <\/em>at *10-11. \u00a0Therefore, the Court denied Werner\u2019s motion to reconsider the denial of Werner\u2019s motion for summary judgment.<\/p>\n

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

Employers confronted with EEOC-initiated litigation involving hiring practices should take note that the Court relied heavily on additional evidence demonstrating discriminatory intent supporting the purported facially discriminatory policy. Further, from a practical standpoint, employers should carefully evaluate training documents that may impact applicants with disabilities, as courts are apt to scrutinize these materials.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and George J. Schaller Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00329, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95981 (D. Neb. May 31, 2023), a federal district court in Nebraska denied an employer\u2019s partial motion to reconsider the Court\u2019s prior denial of its motion for summary … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Nebraska Federal Court Allows EEOC-Initiated ADA Lawsuit To Proceed”<\/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-563","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\/563","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=563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=563"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}