« Employers can use state funds to fight unions | Main | EEOC's retiree health care regulation upheld »
Monocular vision was a disability
September 25, 2005 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
Employees with monocular vision were denied driving positions with UPS because the employer's "vision protocol" required some central vision and some peripheral vision in each eye.
The 9th Circuit decided that (1) the employees were disabled under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) [although not under the federal ADA], but (2) the employer satisfied the FEHA's safety-of-others defense. EEOC v. United Parcel Service (9th Cir 09/15/2005).
The court noted that while the ADA required that the employee's condition substantially limit a major life activity, the FEHA required only that the employee's condition limit a major life activity.
(1) With respect to the major life activity of seeing, the court found that the trial court erred by comparing monocular vision employees with farsighted employees. Under the FEHA the court found that a limitation in vision was sufficient. With respect to the major life activity of working, the court pointed out that the FEHA expressly recognized working as a major life activity and further provided that this was so regardless of whether the actual or perceived working limitation implicated a particular employment or a class or broad range of employments. The court found the employees demonstrated that they were limited in working as commercial delivery drivers, not only because they were excluded from working as full-time package car drivers for the employer, but also because they were excluded from any commercial driving position that required Department of Transportation (DOT) or state certification.
(2) The court was persuaded that the employer prevailed on its safety-of-others defense (Cal Gov't Code Section 12940(a)(1)) because the employer's vision protocol rested on objective and statistical evidence that monocular drivers were involved in somewhat more accidents than binocular drivers, because the risk of harm to others was high, because the employer's standard did not categorically exclude monocular individuals from working as full-time package car drivers, and because the application of the vision protocol was individualized to each employee and applicant.
My view: A reminder that --
- State statutes often have more expansive definitions of "disability" than the federal ADA.
- Employers who do their homework can successfully defend on the ground that a disabled person presents a threat to the safety of others.
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
