Can you imagine the money to be made in lawsuits when deaf truckdrivers kill people, by backing up over screaming children or not hearing horns? The parasitic lawyer business is a plague on our nation.
Posted on 12/29/2007 1:03:49 PM PST by SmithL
A federal appeals court ordered a San Francisco judge on Friday to reconsider his ruling requiring United Parcel Service to give its deaf employees a chance to compete for jobs as drivers of small delivery trucks.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 13-2 that U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson had used the wrong standard in his 2004 decision that UPS was discriminating against deaf people with safe driving records by refusing to consider them for commercial driving jobs.
Henderson allowed the plaintiffs to show that they were qualified for the jobs based on their driving records, and failed to require them to show that they were capable of driving delivery trucks, the court said. The court didn't say how that should be done, but stressed that it was still up to the company to prove its policy is a legitimate safety measure.
UPS, the world's largest private package carrier, called the ruling "a victory for public safety." But a lawyer for hundreds of deaf and hard-of-hearing employees described it as a minor setback and predicted that Henderson would reach the same conclusion after a new trial.
The dispute involves trucks weighing 10,000 pounds or less, which account for about 9 percent of the Atlanta company's fleet of 65,000 delivery vehicles. U.S. Department of Transportation regulations set hearing standards for drivers of trucks weighing more than 10,000 pounds, but UPS applies the same standards to its smaller vehicles.
A nationwide class-action lawsuit, filed in 1999, accused UPS of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. In its defense, the company argued that deaf drivers were more likely to get into accidents because they could not hear sirens, screeching tires or other danger signals.
After a non-jury trial, Henderson ruled in October 2004 that UPS must allow deaf employees to apply...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Oh no! Not the deaf UPS drivers again!!
Thelton Henderson was the judge who struck down Prop. 183.
Drivers without cell phones? I'm all for it.
They can still TXT MSG.
[cue Johnny Carson (as Carnac the Magnificent) and Ed McMahon]
“Moo! Bang! Moo!”
“Moo! Bang! Moo!”
[Carnac opens the envelope and reads the question]
“What do you hear when a deaf UPS driver makes a run through a rural area?”
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
There are times when I think that the ADA is the worst thing that happened to this place.
Thanks for nothing again, Uncle Ted!
The first time there’s an accident involving one of these driver’s the jury will award huge damages against UPS on the ground that they should have known better than to hire deaf drivers.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
You can thank Bush Sr. and Bob Dole for this catastrophe.
Ok, I’m not saying deaf people can’t drive,but how can they hear dispatchers on deliveries? Or call for directions?
I am sure you do all those things and are a very careful, safe driver. Nevertheless, it is appropriate for UPS and other employers to insist on a higher standard for commercial drivers who are on the road 8 hours a day, and any law that doesn’t recognize that distinction is an ass.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"For a person who uses sign language, substituting preferential seating and an opportunityto read the examination instructions and Part D (Exam 470 Entrance Battery and Exam 460 Rural Carrier exams) in lieu of an interpreter most likely will not satisfy our obligation to accommodate an individual who is deaf. For applicants who became deaf at birth or before they used language, reading the test instructions (rather than having the test instructions translated) may not be appropriate. Similarly, providing an interpreter would not be an effective accommodation for an individual who became deaf later in life and never learned sign language."
Which means that you have to find out how it came to be that the applicant is deaf to know which method to use to administer the test.
USPS hires deaf letter carriers (foot and mounted).
Can you imagine the money to be made in lawsuits when deaf truckdrivers kill people, by backing up over screaming children or not hearing horns? The parasitic lawyer business is a plague on our nation.
Today you can use text devices to send messages. Its not the insurmountable handicap it once was.
****************
You really want drivers texting?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.