UPS Settles Suit With Deaf Employees

Kalista

New Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
7,927
Reaction score
4
United Parcel Service has settled most of a class-action lawsuit brought by hundreds of hearing-impaired workers.

The package delivery titan will pay nearly $6 million and make changes to ensure that deaf employees and job applicants have full access to workplace safety, information and promotion opportunities.

The agreement ends a trial that began in April of a class-action lawsuit claiming UPS discriminated against more than 900 current and former hearing-impaired employees.


The proposed settlement requires court approval after notice is distributed throughout the country and a fairness hearing is held.

UPS is the nation's fourth-largest private employer.
 
I hope it's for a good reason. Other than that, it's abuse of ADA rights.
 
NY Times articles.......

Lawyers for more than 1,000 current and former deaf employees at United Parcel Service yesterday announced the settlement of a discrimination lawsuit in which the company agreed to pay $10 million and to take steps to accommodate deaf workers.

In the settlement in San Francisco, U.P.S. pledged to provide deaf workers with effective communications, including interpreters, for interviews, orientation, training, safety meetings and disciplinary sessions.

The plaintiffs' lawyers predicted that the settlement would encourage other companies to do more to accommodate deaf employees. The settlement was announced in San Francisco, after the lawsuit had been tried for six weeks in a federal courtroom there.

"This settlement is precedent-setting," said Caroline Jacobs, a lawyer with Disability Rights Advocates, a nonprofit law group. "It sends a message to employers throughout the country that disabled employees deserve the same opportunities in the workplace as any other employee, and the nation's fourth largest employer can't treat its deaf employees as second-class citizens."

U.P.S., a package delivery service, has 320,000 employees in the United States.

At the trial, Babaranti Oloyede, a Bay area employee at U.P.S., testified that the company refused to provide him with an interpreter during a safety training session on watching for packages that might carry anthrax. He said that over 10 years the company never provided a qualified interpreter for any other training.

Peggy Gardner, a U.P.S. spokeswoman, said, "The measures called for in the settlement will make what we believe is one of the best working environments even better."

In settling, she said, the company was not admitting to having a discriminatory working environment. She said that the settlement made sense for the company because the trial was expected to last many more months.

U.P.S. agreed that company officials would meet at least three times a year with each deaf employee to address work concerns. To help with emergency evacuation procedures, U.P.S. will provide each deaf worker with a vibrating pager. The company will pay $4.1 million in lawyers' fees and distribute $5.8 million to the plaintiffs, with the amount ranging from $5,000 to $60,000.

by Steven Greenhouse
 
Originally posted by VamPyroX
Seriously?
yes but there's actualy 5 class members that are suing them but there's more members on the list and it go above 600 deaf employees I think... I'm one of them and I did went to the court in San Francisco recently end of May...
 
Originally posted by pimpdaddyposse
yes but there's actualy 5 class members that are suing them but there's more members on the list and it go above 600 deaf employees I think... I'm one of them and I did went to the court in San Francisco recently end of May...
What problems did UPS cause for you?
 
Originally posted by VamPyroX
What problems did UPS cause for you?
I only worked UPS for 3 months... they're nice but other way no... no closed captions, there wasn't any interpreator for any important meetings, I given very small information about Antrax scare 2 day after there was a meeting about it... The list go on...
 
damn...more deafies sue companies...more companies see how way deafies are...more companies won't hire deafies in the future...they can cover other ways reasons why they can't hire deafies than one reason.

oh great..i guess i better start study more and more speeches so i could talk and get best job.

the where i work, the company has no closed caption..not bec of tv but tapes that it was made long time ago. they always give me the papers what the tapes about and meetings too. if i wanted to answer some questions, i have papers to write down and raise the hand up, have someone speak for me. i don't want them to think i need more and more depends.
 
Originally posted by vvti low rolla
damn...more deafies sue companies...more companies see how way deafies are...more companies won't hire deafies in the future...they can cover other ways reasons why they can't hire deafies than one reason.

oh great..i guess i better start study more and more speeches so i could talk and get best job.

the where i work, the company has no closed caption..not bec of tv but tapes that it was made long time ago. they always give me the papers what the tapes about and meetings too. if i wanted to answer some questions, i have papers to write down and raise the hand up, have someone speak for me. i don't want them to think i need more and more depends.

Actually...the companies are becoming MORE selfish.

Several companies fired employees (any age, sex, hearing, disabilied, and so on) just to save themselves more money and to hold more profitability for themselves. In other words, they think for themselves instead of their employees.

For example:

Walmart used to be awesome. Because of Sam, the owner of Walmart. He used to offer luxary (giving stocks) to those managers if they did excellent work with friendly attitude with both employees and customers. Now with Sam gone....coporate executives on Walmart has focused more on profitability....there's now managers with snobby attitude...that is selfish. :(

Where does deafness come in this whole story? It's not just deafness disability that plays in the part of how the corporate companies control their own resources and their own managements.
 
Originally posted by vvti low rolla
damn...more deafies sue companies...more companies see how way deafies are...more companies won't hire deafies in the future...they can cover other ways reasons why they can't hire deafies than one reason.

oh great..i guess i better start study more and more speeches so i could talk and get best job.

the where i work, the company has no closed caption..not bec of tv but tapes that it was made long time ago. they always give me the papers what the tapes about and meetings too. if i wanted to answer some questions, i have papers to write down and raise the hand up, have someone speak for me. i don't want them to think i need more and more depends.
It's not the way companies see how deafies are, it's the way how their system works. It's complicated but for UPS's own good... Now I heard small rumors that deafies are suing Post Office somewhere in eastern states that I dunno about. But UPS has been going on and on for long time and it's time to stop and UPS lost because we have a strong case for thousands reasons... Long time ago, deafies were being ignored and do the dumb hard working than hearing does... Now there's ought to be 50/50 equal rights...
 
Most big companies hire Deaf, Handicapped, Disabled, Blind, whatever you call it, they hire those kind of employees to meet the national quota. And they get tax credit for each Deaf or disabled employee. Of course, the big companies won't hire based on skill. It's all about the money!!!!! Money and no heart.
 
Originally posted by pimpdaddyposse
It's not the way companies see how deafies are, it's the way how their system works. It's complicated but for UPS's own good... Now I heard small rumors that deafies are suing Post Office somewhere in eastern states that I dunno about. But UPS has been going on and on for long time and it's time to stop and UPS lost because we have a strong case for thousands reasons... Long time ago, deafies were being ignored and do the dumb hard working than hearing does... Now there's ought to be 50/50 equal rights...

I agree with you, PDP -- I worked for UPS for a short time, over Christmas back in 1996 during the busy 2 weeks when Christmas is around. It wasn't too bad though they didn't have an interpreter available for when they needed to announce something and that sort. But there were always someone who'd write or tell me face to face of what was happening. At least, they did make sure I was part of the group and not left out.
 
well.....you know what, they should do same what my company do to me like papers they write down before host meeting and give it to me during meetings, watch tv or whatever important informations they think we need to know....if there are very biggest serious case like for explain antrax case, we reguired the fuckin' interperters cuz deafies would have alot million questions to ask. im happy with my company, but they aren't my last anyway.
 
Originally posted by vvti low rolla
damn...more deafies sue companies...more companies see how way deafies are...more companies won't hire deafies in the future...they can cover other ways reasons why they can't hire deafies than one reason.

oh great..i guess i better start study more and more speeches so i could talk and get best job.

the where i work, the company has no closed caption..not bec of tv but tapes that it was made long time ago. they always give me the papers what the tapes about and meetings too. if i wanted to answer some questions, i have papers to write down and raise the hand up, have someone speak for me. i don't want them to think i need more and more depends.

Whoa, wait a minute !! Not just for the Deaf people.... There are more than that... I would like to share the article with you referring to McDonald. A lady who applied a position to become a manager.

March 30, 2003
Lifetime Affliction Leads to a U.S. Bias Suit
By Steven Greenhouse

NORTHPORT, Ala. Samantha Robichaud was born with a dark purple birthmark covering her face, and she has felt the sharp sting of discrimination ever since.

"As a child, I was always exiled," Ms. Robichaud said. "No one wanted to play with me. Kids were scared that if they touched me it would rub off."

In school, Ms. Robichaud (pronounced ROW-buh-shaw) remained an outcast because of her birthmark, known as a port wine stain.

"I was never in the social scene, never with the cheerleaders or football crowd," she said. "The big joke was the guys would dare each other to make a date with me. Then some good-looking guy would go out with me and break my heart. Then everyone giggled about it."

Ms. Robichaud is 32 now, married and the mother of two, and well past worrying about schoolyard cruelty. Her struggle now is to obtain a measure of justice in a lawsuit that charges her former employer, a McDonald's restaurant, with treating her as shabbily as some grade-school children did.

In early March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal lawsuit in Birmingham, 60 miles away, accusing the McDonald's franchisee of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to promote Ms. Robichaud to manager because of how she looks. The franchisee, R.P.H. Management, denies the accusation.

About one in 3,000 children are born with port wine stains, caused by dilated capillaries under the skin, but Ms. Robichaud's doctors said hers was one of the worst they had ever seen, and untreatable by laser surgery.

Sometimes, she acknowledged, people derisively call her an alien.In August 2000, Ms. Robichaud took a job at a McDonald's restaurant here, down Highway 43 from her high school. "I let them know when I was hired that I would be seeking a management position, that I would not want to be on the bottom of the totem pole forever," she said.

From 4 a.m. to 2 p.m. each day, she worked the grill, rushing hundreds of Big Macs and Egg McMuffins to the drive-through window and front counter. Eager to move up, she sought to master all the skills of running a McDonald's, learning how to stock the restaurant and working the counter and drive-through window when co-workers were out sick.

She showed how much she was very enthusiasm in her performance. She did not receive any compliment from the McDonald. She took over other colleagues to do overdue work.

In her five months at McDonald's, she said she grew frustrated when some workers hired after her were promoted to manager. Ms. Robichaud, who was making $5.75 an hour, said she occasionally asked her superiors why she had not been promoted and was told she needed more experience and should learn to do some tasks faster.

One day, in January 2001, she said, opening the restaurant with the shift manager, the manager complained of health problems and voiced concern that there was no one suitable to replace her if she was out sick.

"I asked her, `Why don't you train me to be a shift leader?' " Ms. Robichaud said. "She said: `I'm tired of telling you a bunch of lies and coming up with a bunch of different excuses. You will never be in management here because I was told you would either make the babies cry or scare the customers off.'

Whoa, that is very insult and rude !

"Ms. Robichaud was stunned. "I felt as if someone just slapped me upside the head," she said, tears filling her eyes. "It hurt."

A talkative woman, with a knack for telling stories, she insisted that she got along well with the customers and especially the children, often joking with them about what toys were in their Happy Meals.

After the rebuff over a promotion, Ms. Robichaud said, she decided she would "stop giving 150 percent." "I had the willingness to do whatever it took to move up," she said. "And then someone says, `No matter what you do, no matter what you put in, you're not going to go anywhere.' How would that make you feel?"

The next day, Ms. Robichaud said, the shift manager criticized her for working slower than usual, saying she had developed a morale problem. Ms. Robichaud was so upset that she clocked out and went home. She never went back, considering herself forced out. The next day, she contacted the E.E.O.C., which concluded that she had been improperly discriminated against. After months of efforts to reach a settlement with the franchisee, the commission filed suit on March 7, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

"This is no different from a whole line of cases in which employers said, `We can't hire someone who's black for this kind of position because our customers would be uncomfortable,' " said Sharon Rennert, acting director of the commission's Americans with Disabilities Act division. "That's illegal discrimination, and it's no different here."

Charles A. Powell III, a lawyer for R.P.H. Management, asserted that the franchisee had done nothing wrong, but he declined to comment further on the case? This disabilities act lawsuit is unusual because commission officials acknowledge that Ms. Robichaud is not disabled? She can walk, talk and work as well as most people. But the lawsuit relies on a part of the law that protects workers regarded as having a disability, and Ms. Robichaud asserts that McDonald's viewed her as having a disability that disqualified her from becoming a manager."

This is an important case," Ms. Rennert said, "because this is a qualified person, an individual who met all the requirements to work at this McDonald's, who showed enthusiasm, a desire to improve herself, and yet for all her efforts, all the employer could see was this facial disfigurement. The employer was making a mountain out of a molehill." But several experts on the disabilities law who represent management asserted that Ms. Robichaud's case faced an uphill battle because of a 1999 Supreme Court decision interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court defined a covered disability as one involving a substantial limitation of a major life activity. The court added that the limitation had to involve more than one particular job.

"She faces a lot of tough legal hurdles on this," said Peter Petesch, a Washington lawyer who represents companies in employment matters. "First, why would they have hired her if they were going to discriminate against her? Second, she has to show that she's substantially limited in a major life activity, and to do that you have to examine whether she's limited from a fairly broad range of jobs. We don't know that."

The case may boil down to whether Ms. Robichaud can demonstrate that McDonald's, by not wanting to place her in a visible job, was excluding her from a broad range of jobs."

This is exactly the type of discrimination that those of us who helped enact the A.D.A. expected the law to address," said Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor who helped draft the disabilities act. "But given the way the law has been interpreted, it's uncertain whether a court will rule that this woman should get a remedy under the law."

If the federal courts dismiss her case, lawyers say, Ms. Robichaud will have no other legal remedy.

Since the lawsuit was filed, Ms. Robichaud has appeared several times on television, where she has sought to spread the teachings of "Beauty and the Beast" and the lessons her mother sought to instill in her? It is beauty inside that counts.

"You can be Miss America, but if you're ugly on the inside, your beauty doesn't mean anything," Ms. Robichaud said. "The beauty needs to come from the heart."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
 
I am so disappointed because they are insufficient disability people speak up for their rights. They let the people oppressive them! I have been faught for my right for two years at my job. I finally got my promotion job last week. It was not easy step by step with the EEO at Federal jobs.

It is very frustrated for the disability people because they do not know how to approach their right with law enforcement.

The ADA law is more advocay with hearing people who are wheelchair, CP, blind, and more visuable disability people than Deaf people. Deaf people can do anything expect can't hear and difficult to speak.

We have to fight our rights. Please do not let them won! We must won !
 
Originally posted by pimpdaddyposse
I only worked UPS for 3 months... they're nice but other way no... no closed captions, there wasn't any interpreator for any important meetings, I given very small information about Antrax scare 2 day after there was a meeting about it... The list go on...
I see. Did you talk to them about the problems?
 
VamPyroX said:
I see. Did you talk to them about the problems?
yes and I got their rude answer like "Sorry you gotta talk to the headquarter UPS about it" or "we couldn't afford to get one"... ahh bullshit them... now look what they got into...tsk tsk
 
Back
Top