Week of February 5th, 2003
EEOC v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., (2nd Cir. February 5, 2003)
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:81/isysquery/irl341f/23/docIn this case, the Second Circuit decided that prohibiting applicant truck drivers from getting a job because of their medication needs (which potentially affected their driving) did not violate the ADA. J.B. Hunt had a list of 836 different medications that disqualified an applicant (or current employee) from working as an over-the-road, long distance truck driver. J.B. Hunt based this list on notations in the Physicians Desk Reference that warned about the side effects of the particular medications. Some of the medications on the list caused drowsiness and others created an increased risk for a heart attack. The EEOC claimed that this blanket restriction unlawfully prevented individuals with a disability from getting a job with J.B. Hunt. The Second Circuit disagreed and found that the employer’s restrictions were reasonable. In order to qualify for an ADA claim, the plaintiff must show that they had a disability and were restricted in a major life activity. The Court determined that in this case, the applicants were not restricted in a major life activity because the job they applied for was narrow (“driving 40-ton, 18-wheel trucks over long distances for extended periods”). The Supreme Court requires that an employee be restricted from working in a large “class of jobs” to qualify as a restriction on a major life activity. The Supreme Court has stated that “the inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working”, to qualify for a claim under the ADA. Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 493, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (1999). In this case the Court reasoned that there were many other jobs with J.B. Hunt that the individuals could pursue without restriction, and therefore the plaintiffs could not state a claim under the ADA.
SIXTH RULES THAT COST-SPLITTING PROVISION AND REMEDY LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ARE UNENFORCEABLE.