This week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) made an announcement about a lawsuit it has filed against a company specializing in logistics and hauling. The lawsuit alleges that the company discriminated against a truck driver who had mentioned experiencing back pain symptoms during the hiring process.
According to the EEOC, Trico Transportation Services, Inc. is accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when they withdrew a job offer from an unnamed truck driver applicant upon learning about the applicant’s reported back pain in a medical questionnaire.
Authorities have stated that the truck driver applied for a job opening at Trico in May 2021. The company offered the job on the condition that the driver successfully completed a drug test and a Department of Transportation (DOT) physical examination.
“The applicant completed both tasks, but Trico informed the applicant that the company was considering his medical history to be high risk based on his answers to the company’s medical questionnaire that revealed a history of pain symptoms in the past. Two weeks later, a manager revoked the offer of employment even though no doctor had restricted the applicant’s activities and despite the fact he was able to perform the essential functions of the truck driver position,” the EEOC said in a news release.
The EEOC is pursuing legal action to obtain several forms of relief on behalf of the truck driver. This includes seeking an injunction to prevent similar discriminatory actions in the future, as well as compensation for the driver’s losses, both in terms of monetary damages and lost wages and benefits.
“It is unlawful for employers to refuse to hire persons due to a perceived disability without making an individualized determination that they cannot safely perform essential job functions,” said Michael Kirkland, director of the EEOC’s New Orleans Field Office.
EEOC New Orleans Field Office Senior Trial Attorney Scott Wilson said, “Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees whom they regard as being disabled, even though they may not be disabled. What matters most in this case is not the employee’s actual condition but how the employer perceived his condition and reacted to it.”
