Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
A trucking company rejected a deaf driver and got hit with a $36 million verdict—here’s what employers can learn.
When a trucking company told a deaf applicant, “No, I’m sorry, we can’t hire you because of your deafness,” it wasn’t just a bad look—it was a multimillion-dollar ADA violation. The jury awarded $36 million (later capped), and the appeals court backed it up.
TL;DR:
A trucking company refused to hire a deaf driver—even though he had a legal FMCSA waiver and had completed the company’s own driving school with an interpreter. The jury awarded $36 million (reduced to the $300K ADA cap), and the Eighth Circuit upheld everything: a directed verdict on causation, summary judgment on the company’s ADA defenses, and even injunctive relief. The court rejected the employer’s argument that its safety concerns weren’t about the driver’s deafness, finding that “just describing his deafness with more words” was still discrimination.
🔗 Here’s the full decision from the Eighth Circuit
This case was a disaster for the employer from the moment the Vice President of Safety and Compliance said, “We can’t hire you because of your deafness.”
The applicant had everything he needed to become a truck driver—except for an employer willing to follow the law.
He had a valid commercial license. He had a federal waiver that allowed him to drive while deaf. And he had completed the company’s training program, using an interpreter in the back seat.
But when it came time to move into the company’s hands-on, on-the-road training program, he was told:
“No, I’m sorry, we can’t hire you because of your deafness.”
That quote came from the company’s Vice President of Safety and Compliance. It was clear, direct, and—according to the jury and the court—illegal.
The EEOC sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The jury awarded $36 million in damages (though that was reduced to $300,000 because of ADA caps). The court also ordered the company to provide back pay and report on future applicants with hearing-related waivers. The Eighth Circuit upheld the entire outcome.
“That’s just describing his deafness with more words.”
The company argued that it didn’t reject the applicant because he was deaf. It said it had safety concerns—mainly, that a deaf driver couldn’t safely communicate with a trainer while driving.
But the court wasn’t convinced. It said that reasoning didn’t actually explain anything beyond the disability itself.
As the Eighth Circuit put it:
“That’s just describing his deafness with more words, not identifying a ‘consequence’ of it.”
So what the company saw as a “safety issue” was really just a restated assumption about disability—and that’s not a valid reason under the ADA.
The company struck out on every ADA defense
- Undue hardship? The company claimed it couldn’t accommodate a deaf driver, but never showed how or why. No documents. No cost estimates. No proof. The court called it out for providing “virtually no evidence.”
- Direct threat? Employers can reject someone if they’re a real safety risk—but only after a proper assessment. The company never did one. Instead, a few managers made phone calls, didn’t write anything down, and relied on assumptions.
- Not qualified? The driver had already received federal clearance to operate commercial trucks—even with his hearing loss. That should have been enough. But the company tried to impose its own rules anyway, which the court said was not allowed.
Employer Takeaways
- “Safety” isn’t a free pass. The ADA doesn’t let you reject someone with a disability just because you assume they can’t do the job safely. You need proof—and an individualized, well-documented assessment.
- Train the people making hiring calls. If your managers or recruiters don’t understand how the ADA works, you’re asking for trouble.
- Write stuff down. The company didn’t document its reasons for rejecting the applicant, didn’t write up its safety concerns, and didn’t show it considered accommodations. That silence hurt them in court.
- “We’ve always done it this way” won’t work. Other trucking companies found ways to train deaf drivers. If your process is more rigid than your competitors’, a court may find your refusal to accommodate unreasonable.
- One bad email can cost you. A recruiter joked in an email about deaf applicants, and the court treated it as evidence of indifference to the law. What seems like a stray remark in the moment can come back to support a multi-million-dollar award.
The Bottom Line
The ADA doesn’t require you to hire someone who can’t do the job—even with help.
The law asks whether the person can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. If they can’t, you don’t have to hire them. But if they can—and you reject them because of assumptions about their disability—don’t be surprised if you end up in court.