Blog
District Court holds UPS liable in ADA Discrimination Lawsuit
Posted by: Melville Johnson, P.C.
May 09, 2008
Topic: Employment Discrimination
Melville Johnson, P.C. can provide representation in cases alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Paul Warren had worked as a UPS package delivery driver for three years when he was diagnosed with epilepsy. Following this diagnosis, he opted to temporarily stop working at UPS. A year later, Mr. Warren was cleared to work a non-driving position at UPS and he was eventually given a non-driving position with a limited amount of overtime. The pay of the non-driving position represented a $300 decrease from the weekly pay he enjoyed as a driver. Later that same year, Mr. Warren was medically cleared by a UPS physician to work as a package car driver. However, Mr. Warren was not eligible for a Department of Transportation ("DOT") commercial driver's license ("DOT card"), because he had been diagnosed with epilepsy and was taking seizure medication. Although federal law required a DOT card only for drivers of vehicles weighing 10,001 pounds or more, UPS policy required all of its drivers to have DOT cards.
Since Mr. Warren could not obtain the DOT card, he requested work as a driver of an 8,500 pound vehicle. However, Mr, Warren's request for work as a driver of an 8,500-pound vehicle was denied, due to UPS' DOT card requirement. After an unlawful discrimination grievance through his union representative, and a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, he filed suit in U.S. District Court (D. Me.) for violations of the ADA and the Maine Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). The attorney's with Melville Johnson P.C., can provide effective representation in federal discrimination cases. The experience that the attorney's with Melville Johnson, P.C. posses can not be matched.
A District Court jury found that UPS unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Warren in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). The Court entered judgment for Mr. Warren for back pay, front pay until reinstatement, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief. UPS appealed. The law office of Melville Johnson, P.C. represent client's in Federal appeals. The Court of Appeals rejected all of UPS's contentions that the District Court erred concerning jury instructions. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held that the challenged jury instructions by UPS were proper, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment entered in favor of Warren.
The information in this summary was primarily derived from the Judicial View.
Topics
Employment Discrimination
Erisa Retirement Benefits
Federal Civil and Criminal Appeals
Pension Rights
The International Employment Effects of SOX
Trust, Will, and Probate Litigation
Whistleblower
Recent Updates
July 02, 2008
Employee Able to Prove Age Discrimination, Despite Being Placed on a Performance Plan.
June 30, 2008
US Supreme Court Upholds Retaliation Claims Stemming from Racial or Age Discrimination Complaints.
June 25, 2008
Supreme Court to Decide Burden of Proof for Age Discrimination Claims.
June 23, 2008
Employee Who Lacks the Symptoms of Disabling Condition Is Not Recovered from Condition.
June 20, 2008
Female Coach Permitted To Pursue Discrimination Suit
