Truckingboards Truck Drivers Forum

Truckingboards Fax Line (Toll Free)(888) 316-2554

 

 

 

                                                                                                                               


Go Back   Truckingboards Truck Drivers Forum > TRUCKINGBOARDS TRUCK DRIVER FORUMS > GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS FORUM
  Contact/Privacy/Help Trucking Jobs   Facebook  Twitter   Add Your Link   Casino


Forum Stats
Members: 24,371
Threads: 59,460
Posts: 705,720
Total Online: 63

Newest Member: rolexwatch


 


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-22-2007, 03:40 PM
Lawyer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 67
Opie is a jewel in the roughOpie is a jewel in the roughOpie is a jewel in the roughOpie is a jewel in the rough
Default Court Rules Motor Carrier Does Not Violate ADA By Having Higher Standards Than DOT

In a decision issued March 21, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that a motor carrier does not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act when it imposes a higher physical standard for truck drivers than provided for by DOT regulations. In EEOC v. Schneider National, Inc. the EEOC challenged Schneider National's decision to disqualify a driver, Jerry Hoefner, after he had a fainting spell and was diagnosed with a condition called "neurocardiogenic syncope." The disorder affects the nervous system and can produce a sudden drop in blood pressure resulting in fainting. The condition is treatable and does not prevent anyone from satisfying 49 C.F.R. §§ 383.5 and 391.11.

The Court stated that Schneider had the right to have an aversion to the slight, yet potential risk, posed by the driver's health condition. The Court stated as follows:
Quote:
The EEOC has confused risk with risk aversion. Two companies might each correctly believe that the risk of a particular type of accident was 1 in 10,000, yet one company, perhaps because it was small, financially fragile, owned by a trust, or as in this case had had an experience of the risk materializing, might be unwilling to assume the risk. That would be a decision irrelevant to liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, even if that company's degree of risk aversion was "unique" in its industry. EEOC v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 321 F.3d 69, 76 (2d Cir. 2003).
The Court also found that EEOC "must lose because there is no evidence that Schneider considers neurocardiogenic syncope to impair any 'life activity' other than driving a truck. The Court reasoned as follows:
Quote:
That [driving a truck] is too esoteric a capability to be judged a 'major' life activity. If being able to drive a huge truck or a truck filled with hazardous chemicals safely, or being able to fly a plane or guide climbers to the summit of Mt. Everest, is a major life activity, then virtually the entire population of the United States is disabled, which would be a ridiculous construction to plane on the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Paul Taylor
Truckers Justice Center
Employment Lawyer Burnsville Minnesota Wrongful Termination Whistleblower Attorney

NOTHING IN THIS POST SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS CREATING AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook!
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
vB.Sponsors
Advertisement System V2.5 By   Branden