8th Circuit Upholds ADA Accommodation Win for Deaf Driver

Memo to HR: In ADA accommodation cases, be sure to conduct an individualized assessment of the applicant or employee before you conclude that it’s not possible to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Making blanket assumptions about what people with disabilities can and cannot do is a terrible idea.

And if you believe that allowing an individual with a disability to perform a certain job would create an unacceptable safety risk, be prepared to show how and why.

An employer in a case from Nebraska recently dealt with these issues. And although it is probably thanking its lucky stars for the ADA’s statutory cap on damages, it’s still on the hook for a six-figure jury award. Here’s what happened.

ADA Suit: Deaf Applicant Seeks Position As Driver

Victor Robinson is deaf. In 2015, he obtained a medical variance, per applicable federal regulations, that allowed him to pursue a CDL and a career as a truck driver.

Robinson successfully completed a driver training program that was operated by Werner Enterprises. He did so with the assistance of an interpreter, who communicated with him from the back seat of the truck. He obtained his CDL after he completed the program.

His next step was to apply for a position as an over-the-road driver with Werner. The company’s policy was to require drivers with less than six months of experience driving a commercial truck to complete a driver placement program that lasted from four to six weeks.

During that period, new drivers were required to drive with a trainer, delivering orders and receiving instructions as they drove. Werner’s position was that the new drivers needed to be able to communicate verbally with their trainers.

Problems With Driver Placement Program

Robinson did not have six months of driving experience, so to work for Werner, he needed to complete the driver placement program.

Robinson received an email from a recruiting manager that said his application had been preapproved. But all of his forward progress came to an abrupt halt when Werner’s vice president of safety and compliance later called him to say he would not be hired. The vice president allegedly told Robinson very specifically that he was being denied the job because he is deaf.

EEOC Files ADA Accommodation Suit

The EEOC filed a disability discrimination lawsuit on Robinson’s behalf, accusing Werner of refusing to hire him because he is deaf and needed an accommodation under the ADA.

A jury found in Robinson’s favor. It awarded $75,000 in compensatory damages and said Werner should also pay another $36 million in punitive damages.

The district court later reduced the punitive damages award to $300,000, the maximum allowed under the statute. It later added awards of back pay, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief.

A federal appeals court upheld the awards.

Why Workplace Safety Argument Falls Flat

Werner argued on appeal that it did not violate the ADA because accommodating Robinson would create an undue hardship. It said Robinson needed to be able to communicate with the trainer verbally, insisting that trainers need to provide “instantaneous” safety training.

But Robinson said an appropriate ADA accommodation would be using hand signals. He noted that other trucking companies use that type of ADA accommodation in their training programs.

The appeals court pointed out that Werner “produced virtually no evidence” that addressed how providing non-verbal cues would fundamentally alter its business or create a financial burden. Instead, it only said that the proposed ADA accommodation would fundamentally change the training program. That wasn’t nearly enough to show undue hardship under the ADA, the appeals court explained.

The appeals court also ruled that Werner failed to offer enough evidence to prove Robinson posed an unacceptable safety risk. To win on this defense, Werner needed to show that Robinson posed a direct threat. Instead, the evidence showed the employer did not conduct an individualized analysis of whether safety would be compromised to an unacceptable extent, the court said.

The lower court’s judgment was affirmed.

ADA Accommodation Suit: Key Takeaways

Here are the most important things to keep in mind from this decision.

• In ADA accommodation cases, it is critical to conduct individualized assessments on whether it is possible to provide a reasonable accommodation. Don’t be too quick to assume that a particular condition or impairment always precludes performance of required job duties.
• The defenses of undue hardship and direct threat are affirmative defenses that the employer must prove. A conclusory statement that an undue hardship or direct threat exists is not nearly enough. Here, Werner argued that the EEOC should’ve come up with an ADA accommodation that the company believed was safe. But it was Werner’s job to show how providing the suggested ADA accommodation would hurt its business, the appeals court explained.
• Research the law before coming up with a justification for a challenged job action. Sounds like a no-brainer, right? In this case, the employer argued that all deaf drivers are unqualified because they pose an unacceptable safety risk. The problem with that position: The law, via federal regulation, specifically allows deaf drivers to get a medical variance from generally applicable physical qualification standards – and that was exactly what this driver did.

Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Drivers Management, LLC, No. 24-2286 (8th Cir. 7/10/25).