The Supreme Court declined on Nov. 6 to take up the disability bias lawsuit of a UPS driver in West Virginia who claimed that his employer violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Supreme Court’s decision allows a ruling against the driver by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to remain in place.
Activists say such “testers” are only helping to enforce the provisions of the ADA, which they say hotels don’t observe unless they’re pressured to do so. The hotel industry counters that some activists abuse the law and burden small businesses by filing dubious lawsuits demanding disability accessibility information.
In the case at hand, Hannah v. UPS Inc. (court file 23-264), the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, or review, in an unsigned order. The court didn’t explain its decision. No justices dissented from the order. At least four of the nine justices have to vote to grant the petition for it to move forward to the oral argument stage.
UPS refused his accommodation request, saying the delivery load for the route warranted the use of a large truck.
In the beginning, Mr. Hannah sued UPS over the injuries, and a district court ruled in his favor. UPS appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which also sided with Mr. Hannah, finding his right hip bursitis was a compensable injury.
After missing months of work because of his bursitis, Mr. Hannah asked the company to provide what he considered to be a reasonable accommodation by letting him use a smaller truck on his delivery route. UPS told him that he couldn’t return to work until his medical doctor cleared him to perform his regular duties without restrictions.
His physician also diagnosed him with sacroiliitis, which hindered his ability to tolerate riding.
“[Mr. Hannah] may return to work with no lifting restrictions,“ the doctor said in September 2018. ”He should avoid prolonged sitting. These requests are related to his workers’ compensation injury claim.”
Mr. Hannah, the petitioner in this case, requested the use of a “delivery van or pickup truck that has softer suspension.” He also suggested that he be transferred to another position that didn’t involve driving and that he would accept an assignment within a 30-mile area of Parkersburg, West Virginia, his home office. He didn’t seek a medical leave of absence as an accommodation, but UPS nonetheless put him on a leave of absence, the petition states.
In late 2018, UPS denied the request for a smaller truck. It stated that allowing the accommodation would have forced the company to make other drivers work more than 9 1/2 hours, a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. The company also said allowing a smaller truck would require Mr. Hannah to make multiple trips, which was neither cost-effective nor safe.
The denial of the accommodation left Mr. Hannah with no choice but to accept an unpaid leave of absence for the rest of 2018 and for several months in 2019. In May 2019, after undergoing nerve ablation on his back, he returned to his work as a driver.
In early 2020, Mr. Hannah sued in state court, arguing that his rights under the ADA had been infringed. The case was apparently transferred to a federal district court, which summarily ruled in favor of UPS in June 2021, finding that Mr. Hannah had failed to make a preliminary showing that the company violated the act.
Mr. Hannah appealed, and the case went to the 4th Circuit, which affirmed the ruling in favor of UPS, according to the petition.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, he argued that the appellate court erred in its analysis of the company’s business judgment on what functions were essential and on the collective bargaining agreement:
“The Fourth Circuit did not consider Petitioner’s 16-years’ experience in the job as evidence that providing him a smaller van was a reasonable modification of equipment. Of chief concern, the decision applied the ADA’s regulatory guidance in determining what functions of a job are essential by equating the modification of equipment with modification of the job’s essential functions.
“No such existing precedent from this Court supports this result, which eviscerates the modification of equipment as a reasonable accommodation.”
Mr. Hannah also argued that neither the ADA nor the Supreme Court’s precedents permit “an employer a presumption that its selection of the equipment used to perform a job is binding in the reasonable accommodation process.”
“If it were, then that would render modifications of equipment meaningless as reasonable accommodations,” he said.
On Oct. 3, UPS waived its right to file a response to the petition. The company didn’t explain its decision.
UPS attorney Richard Wallace of Littler Mendelson in Charleston, West Virginia, didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.
Mr. Hannah’s attorney, Hoyt Glazer of Glazer Saad Anderson in Huntington, West Virginia, declined to comment.
