Skip to main content

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

9th CircuitSeptember 20, 2002No. Nos. 01-15410, 01-15976, 01-15977Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Bertelsman, Canby, Rymer
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

District court found UPS's vision protocol discriminatory and issued injunctive relief requiring modification; appeals court affirmed some aspects but remanded on disability determination issue for monocular employees under ADA standards.

What This Ruling Means

**UPS Vision Requirements Ruled Discriminatory** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued United Parcel Service (UPS) over the company's vision requirements for drivers. UPS had a policy that automatically disqualified people who were blind in one eye (monocular vision) from driving positions, regardless of their actual driving ability or safety record. The district court found that UPS's blanket vision policy violated disability discrimination laws. The judge ordered UPS to change its hiring practices and consider each person's individual qualifications rather than automatically rejecting all monocular applicants. When UPS appealed, the appeals court largely agreed with the lower court's decision but sent part of the case back for further review on how to properly evaluate whether monocular vision counts as a disability under federal law. This case matters because it shows that employers cannot use broad, automatic disqualifications based on disabilities when making hiring decisions. Instead, companies must look at each person's actual ability to do the job safely. Workers with disabilities have the right to be evaluated fairly based on their individual skills and qualifications, not blanket assumptions about their conditions.

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.