PepsiCo Sued for Allegedly Failing to Accommodate Blind Worker

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently claimed PepsiCo unlawfully failed to accommodate a blind customer care worker at a facility in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The company allegedly asserted that the worker's requested accommodation was too expensive and that it would have cost between $500,000 and $1 million for it to attempt to rebuild its existing software to be compatible with the requested screen-reading technology. The EEOC said that PepsiCo has a reported operating budget of approximately $75 billion and that the company didn’t accept the state vocational counselor’s repeated offers to identify potential accommodations and assist with securing necessary equipment, including by providing technical and financial assistance. The EEOC also maintained that the cost estimates were not based on hard data but rather speculation.

“Applicants for employment and new employees are particularly vulnerable when it comes to disability discrimination,” said Melinda Dugas, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte, N.C., office. “At that stage, the employee often does not yet have enough information about the employer’s operations to recognize and assess potential reasonable accommodations. It is incumbent upon the employer to share information and to work with an employee or the employee’s advocate to identify possible accommodations.”

In a statement, PepsiCo said, “While PepsiCo does not comment on the details of pending litigation, we fully comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] and provide reasonable accommodations to support individuals in achieving their full potential within our organization. PepsiCo is fully committed to providing equal opportunities for all applicants and employees, ensuring our operating practices adhere to our equal employment opportunity policy.”

We’ve gathered articles on the news from SHRM Online and other outlets.

EEOC Complaint

The customer care advocate position’s duties included speaking with customers, taking service orders over the phone and digitally entering the orders into the company’s proprietary software system, diagnosing soda fountain issues, and dispatching equipment or services to customer locations. The worker in this case notified the company that he is blind before his start date and said screen-reading software was available that would allow him to answer and respond to customer calls.

The company allegedly rejected the vocational counselor’s offer to help, stating that accommodations had to be handled internally. PepsiCo informed the worker that it had tested two screen-reading software products—Job Awareness with Speech and Nonvisual Desktop Access—and found that 3 of 12 programs within the company’s software system were incompatible with them, according to the complaint. However, in a 2022 Zoom meeting with the worker, the company allegedly said that only 250 of its 300,000 employees use one of the programs, the defendant’s customer equipment tracking system (CETS). The company also noted that it planned to replace the CETS at its Winston-Salem location with nonproprietary, cloud-based software by 2025.

PepsiCo allegedly said it had looked for other jobs for the worker but could not find anything that did not require the use of the CETS system or that was otherwise suitable for him.

In addition to seeking reinstatement or front pay in lieu of reinstatement for the worker, the EEOC is seeking compensation for past and future losses, including for emotional suffering and punitive damages.

(EEOC complaint)

Untapped Talent

There are 8 million people with blindness or low vision in the U.S. More than 4.23 million of them are working age, but only approximately half of that working-age population is employed. Assistive technologies such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, and braille notetakers provide people who are blind or who have low vision with the opportunity to succeed in the workplace.

(Government Technology)

Interactive Process

Upon learning of the possible need for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, organizations should engage in a process in which the employee and the employer each share information about the nature of the disability and the limitations that may affect the employee’s ability to perform their essential job duties. This process is referred to as the interactive process and involves a good-faith effort by the employer and the employee to discuss the limitations or performance issues the employee’s disability may pose. The purpose of this discussion is to determine what accommodations may be needed.

(SHRM how-to guide)