Jury rules in favor of Nebraska company in EEOC case over policy regarding deaf driver

A jury in Omaha has found in favor of Werner Enterprises in a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accusing the Omaha-based transportation company of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act for not hiring a Texas driver who is deaf.

Werner’s attorneys successfully argued at trial the decision not to hire Andrew Deuschle was “due to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.”

On Friday, at the end of a five-day trial in U.S. District Court of Nebraska in Omaha, the jury deliberated for about an hour and a half before returning a verdict siding with Werner.

The EEOC had sought a judgment declaring that Werner’s employment application violates the ADA and ordering the company to stop making any disability-related inquiries of job candidates. They also had sought money for back pay, job search expenses and other compensation, plus punitive damages.

According to the complaint filed in 2018, Deuschle, who has been deaf since infancy, received an exemption from the hearing requirement set out in federal regulations for commercial motor vehicle drivers.

And in 2015, he applied for a co-driver position at Werner and, by email, told a recruiter about his nearly five months of experience driving for another carrier, C.R. England, and about his hearing exemption.

Werner “preapproved” his application, but ultimately didn’t hire him.

In a pretrial ruling, the judge rejected Werner’s defense that Deuschle posed a direct threat to the health and safety of himself or others if allowed to operate a commercial motor vehicle.

At trial, the EEOC alleged, and Werner admitted, they have a practice of classifying deaf drivers differently when they apply for employment. While non-deaf drivers’ initial applications are automatically preapproved and they’re conditionally offered a job, deaf drivers’ applications go to a manager.

It wasn’t clear at what stage of the process Deuschle received his preapproval from Werner.

In this case in particular, Elizabeth Culhane, one of Werner’s attorneys, argued that Deuschle wasn’t able to perform the essential functions of the position because he couldn’t complete the company’s in-house training program, which requires spoken communications in emergency situations.

“Although Werner’s safety department determined the proposed accommodations for training a deaf driver in its driver placement program are unsafe, the EEOC has brought a campaign of litigation against Werner for declining to hire and train Deuschle” and another driver, Culhane said.

She also pointed to the fact that Deuschle never provided Werner with a copy of his Department of Transportation exemption and argued the evidence does not support a finding of any violation of the ADA.

“To the contrary, even the EEOC acknowledged during the course of its investigation that Deuschle did not provide all requested information in a timely manner, thereby conceding the legitimacy of one of Werner’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring Deuschle,” Culhane said in a pretrial brief.