Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

9th CircuitSeptember 14, 2005No. 03-16855, 04-15928, 04-16403Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Kleinfeld, Hawkins, Graber
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court affirmed that monocular vision employees are disabled under FEHA, but upheld UPS's denial of driving positions based on the safety-of-others defense in one group and remanded the other group's case for further proceedings on the ADA disability issue.

What This Ruling Means

# UPS Discrimination Case Summary **What Happened** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued United Parcel Service, claiming the company discriminated against workers with monocular vision (sight in only one eye). These employees wanted driving positions but were denied jobs based on their vision condition. The workers argued UPS failed to accommodate their disability as required by law. **What the Court Decided** The court reached a split decision. It agreed that monocular vision counts as a disability under California law. However, it allowed UPS to reject some workers from driving jobs because the company argued safety concerns justified the restriction. The court sent the other group's case back to a lower court for additional review of federal disability law. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling shows courts recognize that having vision in only one eye is a protected disability. However, it also established that employers can sometimes refuse to hire disabled workers if they claim genuine safety reasons. Workers with disabilities should understand they have legal protections, but employers may still deny certain positions if safety is a legitimate concern. Each case gets individual review.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.