FedEx Ground Sued by EEOC, NAD for ADA Violation
Updated: December 6, 2021
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against FedEx Ground Package System, INC. (FedEx Ground) on October 10, 2014. The lawsuit charges FedEx Ground with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating for many years against a large number of deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers and applicants.
“FedEx Ground failed to engage in an interactive process with deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers and applicants to address their needs and to provide them with reasonable accommodations.
That’s why we filed this lawsuit — to remedy alleged pervasive violations of the ADA on a national level.”
The lawsuit was filed in response to 19 separate charges filed throughout the country, all citing discrimination against deaf and hard-of-hearing workers by FedEx Ground. The EEOC conducted a nationwide investigation and consolidated these charges into one lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Maryland.
Note that there are currently deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers at FedEx Ground locations throughout the country, including facilities in Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Kansas, Illinois, Maryland, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia.
FedEx Ground Fails to Provide ASL and Closed Captioning for Workers
According to their job descriptions, package handlers at FedEx Ground “physically load and unload packages from delivery vehicles, place and reposition packages in FedEx Ground’s conveyor systems, and scan, sort and route packages.”
The EEOC charges find FedEx Ground in violation of the ADA, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of disability and further requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees with a disability.
“FedEx Ground should have provided effective accommodations to enable people with hearing difficulties to obtain workplace information that is disseminated in meetings and in training sessions.”
Despite their longstanding knowledge of employing a significant number of deaf and hard-of-hearing workers, FedEx Ground blatantly violated the ADA by failing to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters or closed captioned training videos in the following situations:
- Mandatory initial tour of the facilities
- New-hire orientation for applicants
- Staff meetings
- Performance meetings
- Safety meetings
FedEx Ground also “refused” to provide necessary modifications to sound-sensitive equipment (such as moving equipment and scanners that beep) to deaf and hard-of-hearing employees. Vibrating scanners and flashing lights on moving equipment are simple modifications that would make such equipment safe and accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing employees.
Reasonable Accommodations vs. Undue Burden
The main exemption for employers not to provide reasonable accommodation for deaf and hard-of-hearing employees is if it causes “undue burden” on the company.
FedEx Ground employed over 65,000 people and had a revenue of $11.6 billion in the fiscal year 2014, according to their website.
With revenue in the billions, it is unlikely that FedEx Ground can prove the undue hardship of providing ASL, closed captioning, and equipment alternatives for their employees.
As Maria Luisa Morocco, EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney, stated:
The NAD Steps In
In July, 2015, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) joined the lawsuit in support of the EEOC. Their counsel, Matthew Dietz of the Disability Independence Group and Christine Elzer of Samuel J. Cordes & Associates, intervened to pressure FedEx Ground to provide reasonable accommodations for deaf and hard-of-hearing employees.
FedEx Ground Motion to Dismiss: Denied
FedEx Ground filed a motion to dismiss the case back in June, 2015. They claimed it was not fair to have to litigate against “hundreds of unnamed aggrieved individuals.” They also moved for a motion to strike the EEOC’s “pattern or practice” complaints against the company.
In January, 2016, a federal judge denied the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike.
Judge Mark R. Hornak wrote:
The case remains in litigation.
This post was originally published on November 13, 2014 by Lily Bond and has since been updated.
What’s the True Price of Closed Captioning Services?
10 Crucial Questions to Ask a Captioning Vendor [Free Guide] Video is a valuable business and communication tool for organizations across many industries. However, videos without closed captions are inaccessible to over 430 million people worldwide with hearing loss. As global video…
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Web Accessibility Requirements for Video
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the most far-reaching piece of accessibility legislation in the US. But since it was signed in 1990, it does not explicitly address web accessibility. It has been up to lawyers and judges to determine how…
How to Tell If You Are Required to Caption Your Videos
Captioning is a critical part of video accessibility. But not all organizations are required to caption (though they should still caption!). Captioning requirements also vary by industry, and often, complying with one law doesn’t mean you comply with all the laws. Because…
Subscribe to the Blog Digest
Sign up to receive our blog digest and other information on this topic. You can unsubscribe anytime.