USA 
United Kingdom
FedEx is at the center of a federal lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), over its treatment of staff with disabilities.
The litigation focuses on the company's treatment of ramp transport drivers, who operate heavy equipment and handle freight at airport facilities.
The dispute centres around a policy that requires the employees to be "100% healed" before returning to full duty after an injury or medical condition.
The case raises critical questions about the balance between operational needs and legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC's action serves as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls in rigid return-to-work policies.
The company's approach involved a 90-day light-duty assignment for affected employees, followed by unpaid medical leave for up to a year if restrictions persisted. The strategy, while seemingly structured, has drawn criticism for potentially screening out qualified individuals with disabilities.
One example involves a Minneapolis-based driver who, despite being capable of performing essential job functions with accommodations, was allegedly terminated after failing to meet the "100% healed" requirement.
In a statement, FedEx said: ”We are committed to complying with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and are reviewing the details of this claim."
The EEOC's stance highlights the need for individualized assessments and creative solutions in accommodating employees with disabilities. Options such as colleague assistance or the use of motorized equipment were reportedly not explored, raising questions about the thoroughness of the process.
The case follows a trend of EEOC enforcement actions targeting similar policies across various sectors. Forecourt retailer Circle K had to make an $8m settlement after it was found to have denied reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees and those with disabilities. A medical center in Louisiana faced a similar sanction.
For HR departments, the implications are that policies that require employees to be fully healed or without restrictions before returning to work may run afoul of ADA requirements. The EEOC's guidance explicitly warns against such blanket approaches.
In a previous case involving a subsidiary of FedEx a $3.3 million settlement was reached over allegations of failing to accommodate workers with hearing impairments.
As the case progresses through the US District Court for the District of Minnesota, HR professionals are advised to review their own accommodation processes.
Key considerations include implementing individualized assessments for employees with medical restrictions; exploring a wide range of potential accommodations before considering leave or termination; ensuring that return-to-work policies do not inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities; and training managers and supervisors on ADA compliance and the accommodation process.
The EEOC's pursuit of both monetary and injunctive relief in this case signals a strong stance on enforcing ADA compliance. As the litigation unfolds, it will likely provide valuable insights for HR practitioners on best practices in accommodating disability.
It serves as a crucial reminder of the ongoing need for HR departments adapt policies to meet both operational needs and legal obligations in an evolving workplace landscape.
