Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

FRESH

Wednesday, April 30, 2025
Logistics

Supreme Court denies UPS driver’s request for vehicle accommodation

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that denied a UPS Inc. driver’s request to force the company to allow him to operate a smaller delivery vehicle with a softer suspension due to back, hip and buttocks injuries sustained while driving a larger, heavier vehicle.

The justices declined to review an appeal of a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision earlier this year that found that Jay Hannah’s request to keep driving his designated route with a smaller truck or a van wasn’t a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Hannah, a West Virginia-based driver, said the larger vehicle he was driving had a stiff suspension that’s harsher on his hip, back and buttocks.

UPS instead argued that allowing Hannah to use a smaller vehicle such as a van or a light truck would violate the collective bargaining agreement between UPS (NYSE: UPS) and the Teamsters union by requiring other drivers to operate more than 9.5 hours a day. The  company also maintained that putting Hannah in a smaller vehicle would require him to make more trips and would be unsafe and non cost-effective.

According to the petition before the justices, Hannah said he wasn’t sure if he could fit all his packages in a smaller vehicle because he never had the chance to try it out.

The main question before the justices was whether an employer’s decision not to modify the equipment used by a union employee considered enough evidence to find that the employer can’t offer a reasonable accommodation to the employee. The corollary question was whether an employer’s selection of the equipment used to perform a job precludes a court from considering whether the modification of the equipment would still allow a union employment to perform his or her job’s essential functions under the parameters of the ADA.

The high court’s action was first reported on Bloomberg Law. Hannah’s attorney declined to comment.

The post Supreme Court denies UPS driver’s request for vehicle accommodation appeared first on FreightWaves.

Related Posts

Load More Posts Loading...No More Posts.