Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Filed December 28, 2007
Cite as 04-17295

UPS Hiring Standards Challenged through ADA

The plaintiffs, Bates sued the United Parcel Services, Inc. (UPS) because of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerning the UPS' hiring standards of hiring for package car drivers.

While about ten percent of the UPS' vehicles are less than 10,000 pounds, UPS imposed, the Hearing Standards required by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for all drivers of vehicles over 10,000 pounds to all of its own drivers regardless of the size of the vehicles that they are driving. This standard, according to the plaintiffs' arguments indicates the UPS violated the ADA.

After a bench trial, the district court found the UPS to be liable of all of the claims filed by the plaintiffs. The district court then enjoined the UPS from using this blanket hearing qualification standard.

The UPS appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 9th Circuit held that under the ADA, an employee bears the ultimate burden of proving that he is:

1. disabled under the Act


2. qualified individual with a disability


3. discriminated against because of the disability

Under the ADA, 42, U.S.C. Sec. 12112 (b) (6), discrimination includes the use of "qualification standards" in order to screen out those individuals with disabilities unless the standards utilized are related to the job and consistent with the necessity of the business.

Wherein across the board safety qualification standard is invoked like the one in this case, the question becomes, what proof is required with respect to being a qualified individual?

The plaintiffs' have the burden to prove that they were in fact qualified individuals.

1. they have to show that they had the records at skill, experience, education and other job-related qualifications for this position


2. The Court considers whether the individual can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation for their disability.

The parties had agreed that the ability to drive safely was an essential function of the driver position. According to UPS' arguments, hearing at a level sufficiently passed the Department of Transportation hearing standard is either a stand-alone essential job function or part of being a safe driver.

Since UPS had linked hearing with safe driving, UPS had the burden to prove that next is the part of its defense to use the hearing qualification standard.

The employees still had the ultimate burden to show that they were qualified to perform the essential function of safely driving a package car with that hearing disability.

The District Court had failed to make a finding with respect to the plaintiffs' ability to drive package cars safely. Only if they meet this burden does the question then become whether the qualification standard used by employer satisfies the business necessity defense.

The Court pointed out that it was not holding and that the ADA did not require employers to hire employees who cannot safely perform the job. It was not holding that an employer could never impose a safety standard that exceeds the minimum requirements imposed by the law.

However, when an employer makes a blanket safety based qualification standard that is not mandated by a law that tends to screen out individuals with disabilities, well then employer bears the burden of showing that the higher qualification standard is job related and consistent with business necessity. Moreover, that performance cannot be achieved through reasonable accommodations.

The 9th Circuit Court had applied the incorrect standard and had made no explicit findings concerning reasonable accommodations in any event since the district court had not analyzed whether the plaintiffs were qualified individuals capable of performing essential function of safely driving a package car.

The District Court appeared to err in denying the carrier's motions for judgment on partial findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) and to decertify nationwide class under Rule 23(c)(1) and (d) where it failed to analyze whether plaintiffs were "qualified individuals" capable of performing "essential function" of safely driving a package car.

Further it only relied on the District court erred in relying on Morton v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001) 272 F. 3d 1249 rather than statutory framework set forth in ADA to determine whether blanket imposition of DOT hearing standard was justified under business necessity defense.

The 9th Circuit remanded the case back to be decided within the framework of this decision.