Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions
Filed as 08-56874, Argued and Submitted March 4, 2010 - August 27, 2010
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Judgment on Disabled Employees Request for Accommodation, Reversed and Remanded

The issue stemmed from the case of Mauricio Centeno, who worked as a junior clerk in the accounts payable division of the accounting department from 2001 to 2009 at a UPS facility in Gardena. Centeno has been deaf since birth and uses sign language to communicate. With the use of the American Sign Language (ASL), Centeno’s language proficiency is equivalent to that of a fourth or fifth grade level student.

But despite that, the supervisors were aware that Centeno could not read written English well and still, Centeno was able to complete his duties even without the assistance of an ASL interpreter.

The two major issues in Centeno’s case include the following:

• whether UPS provided Centeno with reasonable accommodations for certain benefits and employment privileges which include weekly meetings, job training, and understanding the company's sexual harassment policy
• how much accommodation is considered to be reasonable

Court records show that UPS sometimes used an ASL translator but still relies on written communication. The employer held weekly and monthly meetings and relied on written agenda, notes and email to convey the information in these meetings to Centeno.

Unfortunately, the company refused to provide an interpreter for short meetings or those that lasted less than two hours only. Although Centeno complained that he cannot understand the written communication, UPS still would not hire a translator for their weekly and monthly meetings and training.

Under federal regulations, the level of accommodation in this case is not enough and the lack of a translator is the same as no translator at all.

Centeno was also advised by the EEOC not to attend meetings without an interpreter, resulting in him missing some meetings. The EEOC later filed a lawsuit based on the employer’s failure to accommodate.

After trial, the district court granted summary judgment on all claims of UPS.

In response, the EEOC sought an appeal.

During appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is a “genuine issue of material fact” on whether the employer unlawfully discriminated Centeno by denying him accommodation.

Further, the appeals court also declared that although the employer has to choose effective modifications and provide the employee with the accommodation that he/ she requests or prefers, it does not mean that the employer provides an “ineffective accommodation”.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals therefore reversed and remanded judgment of the case.