|
"ADA In the
Headlines"
www.adagreatlakes.org.
Pittsburg Business Times (Pittsburg, PA)
July 30, 2007
UPS faces class-action ADA lawsuit over working conditions Kris B.
Mamula - Pittsburgh Business Times
A federal judge in Pittsburgh has granted class-action status to a
lawsuit alleging that United Parcel Service Inc. failed to help
disabled employees return to work by modifying working conditions.
Employers are required to make "reasonable accommodations" for
workers
with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
U.S. District Court Judge Joy Flowers Conti granted class action
status to the plaintiffs in the case on July 16.
The certification of the class means that between 30,000 and 50,000
UPS workers nationwide are part of the lawsuit instead of only the
three men named in the original complaint, which was filed in 2004,
according to lead lawyer Anita Laing of the Colchester, Conn.-based
law firm of Scott+Scott LLP.
The lawsuit does not specify damages that are being sought.
UPS is the world's largest package delivery company, with 1,700
facilities and about 328,000 employees nationwide. The lawsuit is
believed to be the biggest such claim ever filed under the ADA,
which marks its 17th anniversary this month, according to
Laing and Christian Bagin, from the Downtown firm of Wienand &
Bagin, which is serving as local counsel.
"The bottom line is that UPS has a 'no
accommodation' policy, that's what we allege," Bagin said.
"Regardless of the outcome of this case, what a small business owner
should take from it is you need to take requests very seriously and
try to see what you can do to keep that worker in the fold.
A written policy is no good if it's not being
implemented."
The original plaintiffs were Mark Hohider, a former driver who was
hurt when
his truck was struck from behind by another vehicle; Robert DiPaolo,
who suffered an injury to his right arm from a package; and Preston
Branum, a mechanic who suffered a neck injury after a supervisor
allegedly punched him in the arm. Hohider and DiPaolo worked at UPS'
sprawling New Stanton facility, and Branum worked in Louisiana; all
were denied workplace accommodations that would have allowed them to
return to UPS.
The lawsuit claims that UPS had an unwritten policy that allowed
employees to return to work, only if they had no medical
restrictions. The plaintiffs also claim that UPS disseminated an
"ADA compliance policy," which was implemented nationwide to delay
and avoid providing accommodations for disabled workers, which is
illegal.
UPS has denied the claims, and is appealing the class certification
to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, according to UPS spokesman
Norman Black.
"We feel it's totally without merit," Black said. "We believed the
court ruling was in error."
Both sides are scheduled to discuss the case at
a conference with Conti on Aug. 9.
UPS claims it accommodates disabled employees,
according to Conti's
opinion: Business records identified 507 employees working in five
sample districts
who had been hurt on the job after May 1, 2000, and who had
returned to work with a permanent disability. Being reasonable
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires businesses to make a
"reasonable accommodation" for disabled workers. Some examples:
Making existing employee facilities easily usable by a disabled
person
Reassigning a current employee to a vacant
position if disabled person is unable to do
original job Modifying or acquiring new equipment (Source: U.S.
Justice
Department Web site)
Source:
http://www.mlive.com/business/ambizdaily/bizjournals/index.ssf?/base/abd-3/1185781211202690.xml
|
