A medical transportation company declined to hire a deaf applicant as a chair car driver. A federal appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision that the decision not to hire was lawful, finding that no reasonable jury could determine that an accommodation would let him perform the essential communication functions of the job without undue hardship.
These drivers work solo and must communicate in real time with dispatch, patients, and facility staff, sometimes during medical emergencies, and the court agreed that the applicant’s proposed video relay and tablet or cell phone based tools raised genuine safety concerns, noting that distracted driving was the leading cause of accidents for the company.
The decision is a useful reminder that undue hardship and safety remain viable defenses when supported by concrete evidence of the job’s actual demands, and that a well-documented interactive process, including exploring alternative roles and explaining concerns in writing, is very important to bolster difficult hiring decisions.