Advertisement

June 19, 2013

Stevens Transport to Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Dallas Trucking Company Refused to Hire Paraplegic Applicant for Management Position, Federal Agency Charged 

6-8-12 DALLAS – Stevens Transport, a Dallas refrigerated transport company, will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.  

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit (Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-2557-L) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Andrew Scott, who became paraplegic in 2003 as a result of a car accident, was denied hire for two management positions at Stevens because of his disability.  Stevens Transport is a refrigerated transport carrier that services major companies in need of over-the-road trucking. 

Scott, who has a bachelor’s degree in economics and management and a master’s degree in business administration, was initially contacted by Stevens Transport after posting his resume on a job search website.  Scott was interviewed over the telephone.  Based on his successful interview, Scott was scheduled for an in-person interview for two open jobs. When he arrived at the interview, however, the company became aware of his disability.  

Stevens management told Scott at the in-person interview that there was some concern he would not be able to keep up with the pace of operations.  After several weeks of communication with the company, Scott was ultimately informed that he had not been selected for hire into either of the positions, despite his qualifications. 

Refusing to hire a qualified applicant because of his disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).  The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.  

“Mr. Scott was very disappointed that Stevens stopped considering him as a viable candidate once they saw he was in a wheelchair,” said Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office.  “He was well-qualified for these positions, but was disregarded because of his disability.  That is a clear violation of federal law as well as unjust to the applicant and counter-productive for the company.”

Janet Elizondo, acting district director for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, said, “The EEOC, through its enforcement and litigation efforts, will stay vigilant to ensure that people with disabilities have a fair opportunity for employment in American workplaces.  

EEOC Trial Attorney Meaghan Shepard added, “It is unfortunate that the company turned this man away because of a false assumption about his capabilities based on his wheelchair.  It is our hope that Stevens has learned from this experience and will not lose out on other promising employees in the future as a result of incorrect assumptions about an applicant’s abilities.” 

In fiscal year 2011, 25,742 ADA charges were filed with the EEOC, an increase of 21% from FY 2009, when the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) went into effect, broadening ADA coverage.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov. rated transport company, will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.  

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit (Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-2557-L) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Andrew Scott, who became paraplegic in 2003 as a result of a car accident, was denied hire for two management positions at Stevens because of his disability.  Stevens Transport is a refrigerated transport carrier that services major companies in need of over-the-road trucking. 

Scott, who has a bachelor’s degree in economics and management and a master’s degree in business administration, was initially contacted by Stevens Transport after posting his resume on a job search website.  Scott was interviewed over the telephone.  Based on his successful interview, Scott was scheduled for an in-person interview for two open jobs. When he arrived at the interview, however, the company became aware of his disability.  

Stevens management told Scott at the in-person interview that there was some concern he would not be able to keep up with the pace of operations.  After several weeks of communication with the company, Scott was ultimately informed that he had not been selected for hire into either of the positions, despite his qualifications. Refusing to hire a qualified applicant because of his disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).  The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.  “Mr. Scott was very disappointed that Stevens stopped considering him as a viable candidate once they saw he was in a wheelchair,” said Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office.  “He was well-qualified for these positions, but was disregarded because of his disability.  That is a clear violation of federal law as well as unjust to the applicant and counter-productive for the company.”Janet Elizondo, acting district director for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, said, “The EEOC, through its enforcement and litigation efforts, will stay vigilant to ensure that people with disabilities have a fair opportunity for employment in American workplaces.  EEOC Trial Attorney Meaghan Shepard added, “It is unfortunate that the company turned this man away because of a false assumption about his capabilities based on his wheelchair.  It is our hope that Stevens has learned from this experience and will not lose out on other promising employees in the future as a result of incorrect assumptions about an applicant’s abilities.” In fiscal year 2011, 25,742 ADA charges were filed with the EEOC, an increase of 21% from FY 2009, when the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) went into effect, broadening ADA coverage.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov. 

 

© Copyright 2012 - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

About the Author

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15...

800-669-4000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.