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
Versata v. Ford: Federal Circuit Reinstates $82M Award and Opens Door to Even Greater Damages
Recently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Michigan’s ruling that Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) misappropriated Versata Software Inc.’s (“Versata”) trade secrets and breached a software licensing agreement. The three-judge panel ordered a new trial on trade secret damages, finding that the lower court improperly limited available damages theories, and reinstated the jury’s $82.3 million award from Ford’s breach of the software licensing agreement.
UPDATED: The Faster Labor Contracts Act Would Permit Federal Government to Impose Union Contract Terms on Employers
The federal government may soon be able to impose the terms of first collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) on private sector employers and unions.
Tariff Refund Litigation: A Primer on Common Plaintiff’s Theories of Recovery and Importer of Record Defenses
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump did not have constitutional authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Trump Administration responded quickly, implementing a universal 10 percent surcharge under the authority of Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act.
Supreme Court 2025: Key Free Speech Rulings
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decisions signaled a more regulator-friendly view of the internet—upholding laws on age verification and foreign-owned platforms under intermediate scrutiny, even where speech is burdened. These cases reaffirm that content-neutral rules that incidentally affect speech are likely to survive constitutional challenge.