Trucking Company May Terminate Driver Who Posed Risk of Fainting at Wheel
July 19, 2007
Mark G. Alexander- Jacksonville
Employers who have employees in safety-sensitive positions often fear the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA generally requires employers to accommodate an employee unless it can prove that the employee constitutes a “direct threat” to the safety of others that cannot be reduced by a reasonable accommodation. The employer faces a dilemma – remove the employee, and risk ADA liability, or risk liability for an injury caused by the employee to himself or others.
A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reduces this dilemma. The court ruled that a trucking company did not violate the ADA by terminating an employee who had a condition that could result in fainting spells, stating that the company was entitled to determine for itself how much risk it is willing to take, even if the risk were permitted by federal safety standards.
The Schneider National Trucking Company terminated a long-haul truck driver, Jerome Hoefner, following a fainting spell and the resulting diagnosis of “neurocardiogenic syncope.” This is a disorder of the nervous system that can cause a person to faint. Schneider’s policy is not to employ a truck driver who has the disorder even though it is treatable with medication and does not prevent a person from meeting driver safety standards required by federal law.
Two years before Hoefner’s termination, another driver employed by Schneider was tragically killed when he drove his truck off a bridge after falling asleep at the wheel. He was diagnosed with the same condition as Hoefner. The incident lead the company to adopt a zero tolerance policy for drivers with neurocardiogenic syncope because the company did not want to take the risk of another accident caused by this medical condition. However, federal safety standards would allow the company to employ a truck driver with this medical condition.
As a result of Hoefner’s termination of employment, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Schneider contending that the company fired Hoefner in violation of the ADA. The EEOC asserted that Schneider violated the ADA because the company mistakenly believed that Hoefner’s disorder is a disabling condition. The trial judge granted the company’s motion for summary judgment and the case was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Circuit Court, in EEOC v. Schneider National, affirmed the trial judge’s ruling for the employer. The court noted that there was nothing to suggest that the company had a mistaken understanding of Hoefner’s medical condition or that it had exaggerated the severity of Hoefner’s medical condition or the risk he posted as a driver. The company was simply unwilling to risk a repetition of the earlier tragedy. The court ruled that under these circumstances, the company was entitled to determine for itself how much risk it was willing to assume, even if the risk is permitted by federal safety standards or other employers others might be willing to assume that risk.
Judge Posner, writing for the court, noted that if there were another accident caused by this medical disorder, the victim’s lawyer would waive the earlier incident “in front of the jury, asking it to award punitive damages because the company had continued to employ drivers” with the same medical condition after having been previously warned by the earlier accident. Judge Posner noted that the argument for punitive damages might not succeed, but “once burned, twice shy.” Therefore, the court held that Schneider National’s termination of the driver did not violate the ADA.
Although the Schneider National decision is a big win, employers need to remember that each ADA situation is unique. Employers should seek legal advice before terminating an employee based on a belief that a medical condition makes it unsafe for him or her to do the job.
For more information, email Mark G. Alexander at mark.alexander@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.