Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a Nebraska district court’s decision that prevented an employer from asserting an undue hardship affirmative defense under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The employer failed to provide sufficient evidence that the requested accommodation would affect its business as a whole.

The Undue Hardship Defense

Under the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities unless doing so would impose an undue hardship — defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense.

Once a plaintiff demonstrates that an accommodation is reasonable on its face, the burden shifts to the employer to establish that specific circumstances make the accommodation unduly burdensome in the context of the particular employee’s role and the company’s overall operations. 

Courts typically assess undue hardship by examining factors such as the employer’s size, financial resources and business structure. In general, larger employers with greater resources are expected to accommodate more burdensome requests than smaller employers with more limited means.

The Case: EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC

In EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC, a deaf truck driver was denied a position with Werner Enterprises because his disability would require Werner to provide interpretation services during their “placement driver program.” This program, which Werner required for applicants with less than six months of driving experience, involved driving around the country delivering orders with a trainer, who would give verbal instructions and corrections when needed. 

The applicant discussed possible interpretation services with Werner representatives, but was ultimately told by the Vice President of Safety and Compliance that they were unable to hire him due to his deafness. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subsequently filed suit on the deaf driver’s behalf, and a jury awarded approximately $400,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. 

On appeal, Werner argued that the district court erred in dismissing their undue hardship defense, claiming that accommodating the applicant would fundamentally alter the nature of the training program. The Eighth Circuit rejected that argument, finding that Werner “produced virtually no evidence before the district court about how providing non-verbal cues would fundamentally alter its business.” 

The only evidence Werner provided was a conclusory statement that non-verbal communications prevent “instantaneous” safety training. However, the Court found it unclear how non-verbal communication during their training program significantly affected their ability to carry goods in interstate commerce, which is Werner’s primary purpose. Additionally, Werner provided no evidence that such accommodation would result in significant expense to the company. Thus, Werner failed to establish that the proposed accommodation would affect its business as a whole. 

Practical Advice for Employers

The Eighth Circuit’s opinion underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence when asserting an undue hardship defense. Employers should be cautious of denying accommodation requests on the basis that said request would alter the employer’s training program and should instead consider the difficulty or expense associated with the request in comparison to the entire scope of the company’s operations and resources.