Facts

Approximately, one thousand current and former hearing-impaired employees of defendant United Parcel Services Inc. (UPS) sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for alleged denial of equal rights and opportunities at the work place.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that they were routinely excluded from receiving workplace information, exposed to unsafe conditions due to defendant's neglect of accommodations, and denied opportunities for promotion. Specifically, the defendant ignored requests for sign-language interpreters for trainings, meetings, and promotion information. This resulted in inadequate training on anthrax in 2001 as compared to hearing employees.

Furthermore, captions were missing in training videos, which put plaintiffs at risk when handling hazardous materials. For emergencies such as fires or chemical spills, hearing impaired employees were not considered in the creation of procedures and alerts. They were forgotten during emergency evacuations. Also, they were not given text phones and were looked over when it came to promotions.

The defendant used a federal Department of Transportation hearing standard for drivers of 10,000 pound vehicles and greater as the minimum threshold requirements for all driving positions, further discriminating against hearing impaired drivers when they sought to drive vehicles below 10,000 pounds.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the federal hearing standard used by defendants was lawful, since even defendant vehicles below 10,000 pounds were similar to those above that weight.

Damages

The plaintiffs demanded defendant to provide sign language interpreters, communication aides, text phones, emergency alerts, and equal opportunities for career advancement. The plaintiffs also sought monetary compensation.

Injuries

The plaintiffs claimed violations of equal opportunity and loss of promotion opportunities.

Result

The accommodations part of the case settled for $5.8 million. In addressing equal opportunities for promotion, defendant agreed to create accommodations to provide for an equal workplace conditions. The court awarded $4.1 million for attorney fees and costs. For the hearing policy, the trial court found for the plaintiffs because application of the federal standard violated the ADA. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit, en banc, affirmed in part and reversed in part. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the trial court did not apply the correct "business necessity" test in evaluating defendant's defense. The case was remanded for the trial court to consider the business necessity test and other issues. The plaintiffs and the defendant settled their dispute concerning the hearing test, where defendant agreed to adopt a more lenient hearing standard for sub-10,000 pound vehicle drivers.