Deaf driver applicant wins $36 million verdict against trucking company
A jury from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a trucking company violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it turned down a driver applicant because he was deaf. The jury awarded the driver $75,000 in compensatory damages and $36,000,000 in punitive damages. The district court subsequently reduced the punitive damages award to $300,000, the statutory maximum.
The story
Victor, the driver, obtained his Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act (FMCSA) variance in 2015. After receiving the paperwork documenting his medical clearance, Victor enrolled in a driver training school owned by the employer. Through this, Victor received over-the-road training from a trainer with the help of an interpreter, who communicated with him from the backseat of the vehicle throughout the process. After completing the program, Victor obtained his commercial driver's license and applied for an over-the-road driving position with the company.
About a week later, Erin, the company recruiter, emailed Victor, asking him to call that afternoon to speak with Jamie, the company’s Vice President of Safety and Compliance. Erin participated in the call, introducing Victor to Jamie. Jamie proceeded to ask about Victor’s ability to safely operate a truck and the previous accommodations he had received regarding the over-the-road training.
After discussing Victor’s previous accommodations, Jamie told him, “No, I’m sorry, we can’t hire you because of your deafness,” and ended the call.
The claim
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) then sued the company on Victor’s behalf, alleging that it violated the ADA when it failed to hire him because of his deafness and need for a reasonable accommodation.
The employer claimed that all deaf drivers posed a direct threat to others on the road because of their condition. The employer, however, failed to individualize the direct threat analysis as to Victor, precluding it from establishing that defense. The employer also tried to claim that an accommodation would pose an undue hardship, but it expressly disclaimed any financial burden imposed by accommodating Victor and didn’t point to any reason why accommodating him would fundamentally alter its entire business, not just the training program.
The employer argued that it didn’t choose to hire Victor because he was deaf, but because of a consequence of his deafness. The court didn’t buy this. It held that there was no meaningful difference between taking an adverse action because of the job performance consequences of a disability rather than the disability itself, because the alleged consequences described Victor’s disability.
The ruling
The court found that the employer indicated that Victor wasn’t qualified for the truck driver position because he was deaf, and it provided no other reason as to why it didn’t hire Victor.
In addition to the monetary impact of the employer’s actions, it has to keep a record of any deaf truck driver applications with FMCSA exemptions and report those records to the EEOC no less frequently than every six months for three years.
EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC; Werner Enterprises, Inc., Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-2286, July 10, 2025.
Key to remember: Dismissing an applicant based on a generalized safety theory can risk an expensive disability discrimination claim.