Court: District Court, M.D. Florida; June 29, 2012; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Richard Samson has filed claims against Defendant Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), alleging that FedEx rescinded a job offer after learning of his Type-I, insulin-dependent diabetes. FedEx has moved for summary judgment on all claims, while Samson opposes the motion. The court has determined that summary judgment is warranted.
FedEx is an interstate air carrier with operations in Florida, involving package delivery via aircraft and commercial motor vehicles. The company has designated facilities, known as 'Ramps,' at several Florida airports where packages are sorted and loaded onto trucks for delivery. Samson has worked as a vehicle mechanic and was diagnosed with Type-I diabetes in 1995, which he manages with insulin. There are no medical restrictions on his activities if he follows his treatment plan. Samson claims that his diabetes significantly limits his ability to eat, care for himself, and function normally.
FedEx employs Senior Global Vehicle Technicians who perform essential job functions including vehicle repair, maintenance inspections, and customer interaction. The job requires the Technician to have necessary certifications and to pass a medical examination as mandated by federal regulations. Technicians operate commercial vehicles, receive comprehensive training, and undergo annual evaluations to ensure safe driving capabilities.
From January 1, 2007, to November 16, 2011, Technicians in Florida operated commercial motor vehicles for a total of 766 hours and 6 minutes. These vehicles frequently traveled between Florida and Georgia. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 31301 et seq., authorizes the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish minimum safety standards for commercial vehicle operators, including the requirement for a DOT medical exam and certification. Operators of vehicles weighing 10,001 pounds or more used in interstate commerce must be "DOT qualified," which includes passing a medical exam. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations apply to all operators and vehicles transporting goods or passengers in interstate commerce, particularly for those vehicles weighing 26,001 pounds or more, which require a commercial driver’s license (CDL). FedEx's vehicles exceed these weight thresholds, mandating that their operators possess a CDL and a current DOT Medical Certification. Employers are prohibited from allowing drivers to operate commercial vehicles without this certification. Additionally, a medical examiner on the National Registry must conduct the required examination, ensuring that drivers do not have any health conditions that could impair their ability to drive safely. Specifically, regulations state that drivers requiring insulin for diabetes are disqualified from operating commercial vehicles in interstate commerce.
A person is deemed physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if they do not have diabetes mellitus requiring insulin for control. FedEx mandates that all commercial vehicle operators, including Technicians, undergo a medical examination and obtain a commercial driver’s license. Mr. Samson applied for a Technician position at FedEx's Ft. Myers facility on February 11, 2009, where only one Technician is employed. The job requirements included a high school diploma or GED, four years of relevant maintenance experience, possession of a valid driver’s license, ability to lift heavy components, and successful completion of medical exams in line with federal regulations.
Mr. Samson was the leading candidate and received a conditional offer of employment on March 10, 2009, which was contingent upon passing a DOT medical examination and obtaining a Florida Class A commercial driver’s license within 90 days. However, during his medical examination on March 11, 2009, he disclosed his diabetes diagnosis and failed the exam, resulting in the withdrawal of the job offer on March 18, 2009, solely due to this failure.
Mr. Samson appealed the decision, alleging that Mr. Madoo, the District Fleet Manager, stated that "we don’t hire diabetics." Interestingly, Mr. Madoo himself is a Type-II diabetic using insulin. FedEx responded on April 2, 2009, clarifying that their hiring policies for mechanics are based on federal DOT regulations, which prohibit hiring insulin-dependent individuals. Mr. Samson later learned of a DOT exemption program for diabetics but chose not to pursue it, believing the Technician position was no longer available, rendering the exemption process unnecessary.
Mr. Samson claims that FedEx failed to inform him about a diabetes exemption program, which he later found through his own research. The attached Instructions to the Medical Examiner state that drivers who do not meet the Federal diabetes standard can request an exemption by calling a specific number. FedEx hired John Rotundo, the second-highest candidate, who is currently the sole Technician at the Ft. Myers facility. His responsibilities include the preventative maintenance and repair of seven tractors and eight straight trucks. Over his three years with FedEx, Rotundo has never driven a commercial vehicle across state lines, carried cargo, and has only test-driven vehicles four times.
Mr. Samson filed a Complaint on January 10, 2011, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), seeking various forms of damages including back pay and punitive damages. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the Court must grant summary judgment if there are no genuine disputes regarding material facts. The Court must view evidence favorably for the nonmoving party, which must provide specific factual evidence to counter a properly supported motion for summary judgment. The judge's role is to determine if there is a genuine issue for trial, focusing on factual disputes that could affect the outcome.
Regarding the ADA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against qualified individuals with a disability. To establish a disability discrimination claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they are disabled, qualified for the position, and suffered unlawful discrimination due to their disability. It is acknowledged that Mr. Samson’s diabetes qualifies as a disability under the ADA; however, FedEx argues that he is not a qualified individual since he cannot pass the DOT medical examination or obtain a commercial driver’s license, thus cannot perform essential functions of the Technician position. A "qualified individual" is defined as someone who meets job-related requirements and can perform essential job duties with or without reasonable accommodation.
A job function is deemed essential if the position is specifically created for it, there are few employees qualified to perform it, or it requires specialized skills. Evidence of a job function's essential nature includes the employer’s assessment, job descriptions, time spent on the function, consequences of non-performance, collective bargaining terms, and the experiences of current and former employees. In the case at hand, it is established that holding a commercial driver’s license and passing a DOT medical exam are essential for the Technician position at FedEx. The job description explicitly states these requirements, and Mr. Samson's employment offer was contingent on meeting them. Since there was only one Technician at the Ft. Myers Ramp, no alternative employees could perform the function of test-driving commercial vehicles. Furthermore, Technicians across Florida are required to possess these qualifications, and failing to enforce them could expose FedEx to legal liabilities.
Mr. Samson, while acknowledging his denial of medical certification, contends that the medical exam requirement should not apply to the Technician role because he has not driven commercial vehicles in interstate commerce. He cites testimony from John Rotundo, who indicated minimal use of commercial vehicles and no interstate driving, suggesting a potential material fact dispute regarding the role's involvement in interstate commerce. However, Mr. Samson has misinterpreted regulatory definitions, conflating "interstate commerce" with general "commerce." Regulations stipulate that all operators of commercial vehicles over 26,001 pounds must have a commercial driver’s license obtained through a DOT medical exam, applying to both interstate and intrastate operations. FedEx has provided undisputed evidence that its vehicles exceed this weight, confirming that the aforementioned requirements are applicable in this context.
Mr. Samson has not effectively challenged the requirement of a commercial driver’s license (CDL) for the Technician position. The Department of Transportation (DOT) guidance clarifies that individuals operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) over 26,001 pounds on public roads, even for occasional driving or testing, must possess a CDL, which necessitates passing a DOT medical examination. The court rejects any argument that a CDL is not an essential function of the Technician role, noting that mechanics are expected to road test their repairs, particularly for critical tasks like brake repairs. Evidence shows that driving CMVs is a regular job duty for Technicians at FedEx, and Mr. Samson's inability to obtain a CDL due to a failed medical examination disqualifies him from being considered a qualified individual with a disability.
Additionally, even if the CDL requirement did not apply based on vehicle weight, the DOT's medical examination criteria would still be relevant, as Technicians handle vehicles engaged in interstate commerce. The undisputed facts indicate that these Technicians are involved in diagnosing and verifying repairs on CMVs that transport cargo across state lines, emphasizing the necessity of their role in ensuring timely deliveries.
Interstate commerce is defined under 49 C.F.R. 390.5 as trade or transportation involving locations within a State but originating or terminating outside that State or the U.S. FedEx is granted summary judgment based on several defenses related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under Title I of the ADA, it can be a valid defense against discrimination claims that qualification standards, which may exclude individuals with disabilities, are job-related and necessary for business. The requirement for Mr. Samson to complete a DOT medical examination for a commercial driver’s license is part of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which FedEx must comply with. These regulations are legally binding and do not allow for individual exceptions, thus serving as a complete defense to discrimination claims.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that federal safety regulations limit the application of the ADA. Mr. Samson was required to obtain a commercial driver’s license due to the weight of the vehicles he would operate, which are subject to DOT regulations, regardless of the nature of commerce involved. FedEx's adherence to these regulations is justified and does not constitute discrimination, as there is no evidence that their reliance on these standards was pretextual.
Furthermore, even if Mr. Samson could argue he is a qualified individual with a disability, his claim would still fail due to the lack of reasonable accommodation options. There were no other Technicians available at the Ft. Myers facility to whom driving duties could be reassigned, and an employer is not obligated to alter job functions that would change the essential nature of the role.
Mr. Samson could not work as a Technician for FedEx without a commercial driver’s license, as doing so would violate federal law and expose FedEx to potential liability. Although Mr. Samson claimed that FedEx should have informed him about the diabetes exemption program as a reasonable accommodation, this argument is unconvincing for two main reasons: first, he acknowledged awareness of the program but opted not to pursue it; second, FedEx had no obligation to inform him about the program or to keep his position open while he sought an exemption. The reasonable accommodation provision does not require employers to wait indefinitely for accommodations to take effect; instead, it pertains to enabling an employee to perform essential job functions in the near term. Consequently, the Court concluded that Mr. Samson was not a qualified individual with a disability, and that Federal regulations provided FedEx with a complete defense. Therefore, FedEx's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted, leading to the case being removed from the trial calendar, judgment entered in favor of FedEx, and termination of all pending motions. Definitions relevant to the case include "motor carrier" and "commercial motor vehicle," as well as clarification on interstate commerce.
