A single recruiting phone call. No application. No interview. And yet, enough evidence for a federal judge to let an ADA hiring case move forward.
TL;DR: A federal court in North Carolina refused to throw out an ADA hiring case brought by the EEOC after a recruiter allegedly shut down a deaf applicant’s job inquiry because he used a relay interpreter. Looking at the evidence in the EEOC’s favor, the court said the ADA covers how employers handle job inquiries, not just final hiring decisions – and that what a recruiter says on an initial call can matter a lot.
A recruiting call that ended almost immediately
In January 2023, an experienced truck driver with a commercial driver’s license and a hearing exemption called a trucking company to ask about job opportunities. Because he is deaf, he used a sign-language interpretation service to make the call.
When the interpreter identified herself and explained she was calling on behalf of “someone that uses sign language,” the recruiter responded, “we cannot accept that over here.” He then said the company “cannot bring in somebody who does not read [write] and speak English,” and hung up.
The driver called back. As soon as the recruiter heard the interpreter speak, he hung up again.
The driver did not apply for a job or pursue the process further.
Why “he never applied” didn’t end the case
The company’s main argument was simple: the driver never actually applied for a job. The court wasn’t persuaded.
The ADA does not just protect people who fill out applications. It also covers how employers handle job inquiries and early steps in the hiring process. If an employer shuts the door at the outset, the lack of a formal application is not necessarily the end of the story.
Here, the driver testified that the recruiter made it “crystal clear” the company was not interested in hiring deaf drivers. Based on that experience, he did not take any further steps or submit an application. At this stage of the case, that was enough to keep the claim alive.
The recruiter’s role mattered
The company also argued that the recruiter wasn’t a decisionmaker and therefore couldn’t create liability. The court disagreed.
This wasn’t a random employee answering the phone. The recruiter’s job was to talk with people interested in working for the company and to help them move through the application process. Because of that role, what he said – and how he handled the call – could be treated as speaking for the company.
In short, control over the process mattered, even without final hiring authority.
Why the court called this direct evidence
The court said the recruiter’s statements and actions during the calls could, on their own, show discrimination. No guesswork or connecting-the-dots was required.
If the EEOC’s version of events turns out to be true, rejecting someone within seconds of a job inquiry because of a disability would mean treating that person worse because of that disability. That is why the case was allowed to move forward.
What employers and HR should take from this
This decision offers some straightforward lessons:
- Train recruiters like managers. Courts may treat them that way.
- Have a plan for interpreter or relay calls. Confusion happens; hanging up should not.
- Don’t mix up disability and qualifications. Hearing ability and English proficiency are not the same thing.
- Build in an escalation option. If a recruiter is unsure how to proceed, pausing and asking for help beats ending the call.
- Remember where risk starts. Hiring problems can begin before anyone fills out an application.
The bigger takeaway
This case isn’t really about trucking or licensing. It’s about what happens at the very first point of contact – the moment many employers assume carries the least risk.
Sometimes, it carries the most.
Bottom line: Hiring risk doesn’t start with an offer letter. Sometimes it starts with who answers the phone – and what they say next.