A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas ruled on July 27 that UPS Freight violated federal law by having a policy, contained in its current union contract with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, of paying disabled drivers only 90 percent of what nondisabled drivers earn when they temporarily move to non-driving jobs, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC filed a lawsuit in August 2017 (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-02453) to obtain relief for Thomas Diebold. Diebold worked for UPS Freight from 2006 to 2015 as a driver at its Service Center in Kansas City, Kan.
After having had a small stroke in 2013, Diebold sought a job that he could not use temporarily for drivers, and did not drive, for medical and non-medical reasons, such as convicted driving a car while drunk.
However, under the UPS policy, UPS paid less than 10 percent less then re-elected to non-driver business for health reasons, such as Diebold, which was formalized in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between UPS Freight and the union. – Poor reasons.
When the UPS Freight policy was considered, Chief Judge Julie A. Robinson agreed with the EEOC and decided that policy violated Title I of the Disability Act (ADA) because “(1) limit [s], segregate [es] (2) management standards, criteria, or management methods that, in our opinion, are the effect of discrimination on grounds of discrimination.
UPS Freight also violated the law by participating in a contractual relationship with [the union], which is openly discriminating against “the physically disabled UPS Installers.”
In addition to declaring that the policy and trade union agreement violated the law, the court also ruled that the “UPS Freight”, a measure that consistently hindered discrimination on the basis of the ADA and the disability that impeded UPS freight and [its union]. Negotiating and approving the terms of the next collective labor agreement that will discriminate on the basis of disability in the case of a violation of [ADA]. “
Legal warning !
The information, comments and suggestions there are not covered by investment advice. It is based on the author's personal opinions. These views may not fit your financial situation and risk and return preferences. For this reason, based solely on this information, investment decisions may not have the appropriate consequences for your expectation. Our Site is not responsible for any direct or indirect damages incurred by the investors as a result of the use of the information on the Site, deficiencies in the sources, damages incurred by profit, moral damages, or damage to third parties.