Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=governmentFilingsNews&storyID=2006-10-10T211016Z_01_N10377370_RTRIDST_0_TRANSPORT-UPS-DISABILITY.XML
United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) may not use certain regulations to exclude deaf people from applying for openings as drivers on its lighter delivery trucks, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday, affirming in part a federal district court's ruling.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backs a ruling by the lower court in a class-action lawsuit against UPS that the package delivery company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The courts held UPS erred by requiring deaf applicants for drivers' positions for its lighter vehicles to pass a hearing test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the company's heavier vehicles.
Unlike the district court, the appeals court held that the UPS test policy had not violated California's Unruh Act, a state civil rights law covering accommodations to business establishments. The U.S. appeals court ruled the state law does not cover employment discrimination claims.
United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) may not use certain regulations to exclude deaf people from applying for openings as drivers on its lighter delivery trucks, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday, affirming in part a federal district court's ruling.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backs a ruling by the lower court in a class-action lawsuit against UPS that the package delivery company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The courts held UPS erred by requiring deaf applicants for drivers' positions for its lighter vehicles to pass a hearing test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the company's heavier vehicles.
Unlike the district court, the appeals court held that the UPS test policy had not violated California's Unruh Act, a state civil rights law covering accommodations to business establishments. The U.S. appeals court ruled the state law does not cover employment discrimination claims.
