8th Circuit Backs Deaf Driver: What HR Should Know About the ADA

Takeaway: Employers must carefully evaluate accommodations for job applicants with disabilities, ensuring decisions are based on objective evidence rather than assumptions. 

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a company’s decision not to hire a deaf truck driver on the grounds that he could not safely communicate with an American Sign Language interpreter while completing a driver training program violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Interactive Resource: Multistate Laws Comparison Tool

In 2015, the plaintiff, a deaf individual, obtained a medical variance from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which exempted him from meeting specific hearing requirements to obtain a commercial driver’s license. He thereafter enrolled in a driver training school owned by defendant Werner Enterprises Inc. The plaintiff received training with the assistance of an interpreter, who communicated with him from the back seat of the vehicle. The plaintiff successfully completed the training program and obtained his license. 

Prior to finishing the training, the plaintiff applied for an over-the-road truck-driving position with Werner. The company’s policy required drivers with fewer than six months of experience, such as the plaintiff, to complete a “placement driver program” before becoming a solo driver, in which the driver spent four to six weeks driving with a trainer and receiving contemporaneous feedback. 

Digital Tool: SHRM Employee Handbook Builder

During the interview process, the company inquired into the plaintiff’s ability to safely operate the truck and the previous accommodations he had received in the training school. The company then told the plaintiff it would not hire him “because of your deafness.” 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Werner on behalf of the plaintiff, and the district court entered summary judgment against the company on its defenses of undue hardship and direct threat.

The company raised several issues on appeal. First, it argued that the court erred in finding that the truck driver was denied employment on account of his disability. According to the company, its decision to not hire was based on the consequences of the plaintiff’s deafness, not his deafness itself. It believed that he could not safely engage in contemporaneous communications with the trainer without diverting his eyes from the road because he needed to rely on a backseat translator. 

The 8th Circuit disagreed. It explained that the company’s reasons for not hiring him were not a consequence of his deafness but rather mere explanations of his deafness. The company’s purported justification merely “describ[ed] his deafness with more words, [rather than] identifying a ‘consequence’ of it,” the court said.

Next, the company argued that accommodating the plaintiff would cause undue hardship. It reasoned that any accommodation for the plaintiff would fundamentally change the company’s driver training program because the trainer would not be able to provide instantaneous safety training to a driver where the driver relies on an interpreter. 

The 8th Circuit rejected this reasoning. The key inquiry in establishing undue hardship is showing case-specific circumstances that the accommodation would alter its business — that is, the ability of a trucking company to carry goods in interstate commerce. The company failed to offer any specific examples of evidence linking the company’s fundamental purpose or economic viability with the plaintiff’s requested accommodation.  

Thirdly, the company took issue with the district court’s rejection of its direct threat defense. Companies have a defense for refusing to hire an individual with a disability if doing so would raise a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. To establish a direct threat defense, employers must present the best current medical or other objective evidence to assess the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and the imminence of the potential harm.  

Here, the court found that no individualized direct threat analysis was conducted by the company prior to making the decision not to hire. The company’s unsubstantiated testimony that it made calls to relevant trucker associations was insufficient as it merely served to back up the company’s pre-existing unfounded fears and prejudices, and was not tailored to the plaintiff’s individual circumstances, according to the appeals court.

The company also challenged certain evidentiary rulings made by the district court. The 8th Circuit rejected each argument. It held that evidence of various company employees’ stray remarks evidencing discriminatory animus against individuals with disabilities was admissible, particularly on the issue of whether the discrimination was intentional and subject to punitive damages. The court further held that evidence of other trucking companies’ accommodations for deaf drivers was relevant on the issue of whether the plaintiff’s proposed accommodation was reasonable. 

Lastly, the court ruled that evidence of the plaintiff’s subsequent driving record while he was employed by other trucking companies was not admissible. The issue at trial was whether Robinson’s training without verbal cues was a reasonable accommodation; the court reasoned that his subsequent accident history while driving alone was not relevant on that issue.

In addition, the company argued that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that the plaintiff was qualified for the truck driver position. Given that lack of evidence, the company argued, the case should have never gone to the jury. The company contended that although the plaintiff had obtained a medical variance waiver from the specific hearing requirements in the federal regulations, the company was not obligated to accept the waiver. 

Toolkit: Managing Equal Employment Opportunity

The 8th Circuit rejected that position. The court held that the waiver program was codified in federal regulations and companies had no discretion to dismiss it. 

Relatedly, the court rejected the company’s contention that the plaintiff was not physically qualified because he could not complete an essential function of the training program. The essential function requirement focuses on the “desired result” — that is safe driving — and does not look to the means of accomplishing the result. The plaintiff’s requested accommodation did not eliminate the essential function of safe driving, it merely altered one aspect of the training program, and two EEOC experts testified that deaf individuals could be safely accommodated while training.

Finally, the company challenged the district court’s equitable relief. The court entered an injunction that the company report records of deaf applicants to the EEOC every six months for three years, and that it retain records regarding such applications. The court found this relief well within the discretion of the district court, given the company’s intentional discrimination, lack of good faith, and previous lack of recordkeeping for deaf applicants. The court also noted that the reporting requirement may help the company avoid future lawsuits by demonstrating its good-faith efforts to comply with the ADA.

EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC; Werner Enterprises, Inc., 8th Cir., 24-2286 (July 10, 2025).

Charlotte Drew is an attorney with Duane Morris in Boston.