Client Alerts & Insights
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Driver’s ADA Challenge to Sleep Apnea Screening Program
April 7, 2017
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court denied a driver’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) challenge to a carrier’s sleep apnea screening program in Parker v. Crete Carrier Corp., U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-2002. In the case, Parker, a driver, alleged that Crete, his employer, discriminated against him by requiring him—and every other Crete driver with a body mass index (“BMI”) of 35 or greater—to undergo medical testing to determine whether they had obstructive sleep apnea.
Crete had a sound, safety-minded reason for instituting the challenged program. As two FMCSA advisory committees have noted, drivers with a BMI in the ranges targeted by Crete’s program are at a high risk for obstructive sleep apnea, a condition known to cause daytime sleepiness and make drivers more likely to have accidents. Based on the advisory committees’ guidance, Crete instituted a policy requiring its at-risk drivers with elevated BMI to undergo in-lab sleep studies to diagnose, and, if necessary, treat, their sleep apnea with the aim of preventing avoidable accidents.
Parker refused the testing, submitting a physician assistant’s note claiming that he had no sleep issues and arguing that he should not be screened as his safety record was exemplary. Crete nevertheless took Parker out of service in accordance with its screening program, and Parker promptly brought suit alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.
The District of Nebraska and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals both rejected the driver’s suit in turn, finding that Crete’s sleep apnea screening program was job-related and consistent with business necessity, and thus permissible under the ADA. Although the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the driver’s appeal does not have the same implications as an express affirmation of the Eighth Circuit’s decision, the decision does assure that the Eighth Circuit’s holding will not be overturned in the immediate future. Accordingly, Parker v. Crete remains binding precedent in the Eighth Circuit, and serves an example of an employer’s permissible use of employee medical testing program within the parameters of the ADA to employers nationwide.
Nevertheless, employers should be cautioned: Crete’s showing that its program was job-related and consistent with business necessity was critical to the case’s outcome, and a misstep in the planning or execution of the screening program could have easily led to a different outcome here. Accordingly, employers considering or using a program like Crete’s (whether for sleep apnea or otherwise) should consider legal counsel to review their procedures. To speak with a Benesch attorney about reviewing your company’s procedures, please contact an attorney in Benesch’s Transportation and Logistics Practice Group.
Eric L. Zalud at ezalud@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4178
Marc S. Blubaugh at mblubaugh@beneschlaw.com or 614.223.9382
Latest News
Science-Backed But Not FDA-Approved: New Lawsuit Challenges FDA’s Rejection of 114 Health-Related Advertising Claims
A new lawsuit challenges the FDA’s rejection of 114 health-related advertising claims for supplements, arguing that the agency’s narrow interpretation of what counts as an “authoritative statement” unfairly blocks science-backed—but not FDA-approved—claims from appearing on product labels.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.
Delaware Adopts Uniform Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors Act, Expanding Bankruptcy Alternative for Distressed Companies
Customs compliance and enforcement defense are high-profile exercises within U.S.-based importers due to the higher-risk regulatory enforcement environment. One of the more complex hot topics facing compliance and legal professionals within importers of record (IORs) is the degree to which “assists” impact dutiable value, and therefore duty burden, in the eyes of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Feds Set Their Sights on Ohio: Unpacking the Federal-State Partnership
Customs compliance and enforcement defense are high-profile exercises within U.S.-based importers due to the higher-risk regulatory enforcement environment. One of the more complex hot topics facing compliance and legal professionals within importers of record (IORs) is the degree to which “assists” impact dutiable value, and therefore duty burden, in the eyes of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).