If Fired Illegally, Would You Want Job Back?

by Kevin Burton

   UPS will pay $150,000 to settle yet another  employment discrimination case, according to published reports. But this story has a twist I haven’t seen before.

   The man illegally fired in violation of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act by the Atlanta-based package delivery company will be, or maybe has been, offered his job back.

   In his shoes, would you want to go back? I don’t see how that could work really.

   I haven’t seen any follow-up stories stating whether he did or did not accept, or even that the offer was actually made.

   Here is how UPS violated the law, according to Julia Marnin of the Miami Herald:

   “A newly-hired UPS employee was fired after his first two shifts at a Florida warehouse because of his diabetes, according to a federal disability discrimination lawsuit.”

   “He worked as a package handler ‘without any issues’ — before a human resources supervisor told him ‘he was a liability to the company,’ due to his disability, a complaint filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says.”

   “The human resources representative refused the Jacksonville UPS employee’s request to take occasional short breaks to check his blood sugar and to have a snack or a drink if he needed one, according to the complaint,” Marnin wrote.

   “She first granted the request, then ultimately denied it and fired the employee in a voicemail message left for him in September 2019, the complaint says.”

   “The man has brittle diabetes, according to officials, which is rare. This form of diabetes is considered ‘hard-to-control’ and unpredictable because blood glucose levels can rise and fall frequently, according to the National Organization for Rare Disorders,” Marnin wrote.

   “On March 15, the court found UPS violated the ADA by refusing to accommodate the employee and by firing him, according to the EEOC. The agency filed the lawsuit against UPS on the man’s behalf.”

   “Now UPS will pay $150,000 to settle the lawsuit, the EEOC announced in a Dec. 22 news release.”

   “McClatchy News contacted UPS and attorneys representing the company for comment on Dec. 26 and didn’t receive immediate responses,” Marnin wrote.

   “As part of the settlement, UPS will offer to reinstate the employee, according to officials. Under a three-year consent decree, UPS is required to ‘maintain an employee hotline; provide live training to human resources personnel, supervisors, managers, and directors, provide three short trainings to bargaining-unit employees per year; and post a notice about the lawsuit,’ officials said in the release.” UPS must also alert the EEOC to any disability discrimination complaints.

   If I had gone through all that, the hiring and firing, the lawsuit and the hassle, I don’t think I would even consider going back. I could never trust the company to treat me fairly. I would probably have a few choice suggestions about “what Brown could do for me” and be done with it.

    Human resources is often anything but human.  I worked in HR for a time and encountered some managers with cold hearts and forked tongues. But never did I meet anyone so stupid as to actually tell someone they were a liability to the company. You usually wrap that kind of thing in a couple of lies and some doubletalk. That’s another surprising angle to this story for me. 

   UPS should have paid extra, beyond the $150,000, for criminal stupidity.

    UPS was also sued for an ADA violation when it discriminated against deaf and hard of hearing delivery drivers, according to multiple reports.

   “The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge’s ruling two years ago that UPS, the world’s largest private package carrier, violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by refusing to allow deaf employees to compete for jobs driving its smaller trucks, those weighing 10,000 pounds or less,” wrote Bob Egelko on sfgate.com.

   So when somebody in a big brown truck leaves a bundle of joy on your front porch, that’s the kind of company you’re dealing with, just so you know.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. I agree with your thoughts on the subject. I couldn’t trust them, though some part of me would be gleeful that they didn’t get their way. Ultimately, they would though because I’m sure they’d find other ways to make the employee miserable. It’s a twisted form of saying you can’t fight the administration. It’s a good thing people do try though and apparently, there are sometimes those who really do stand up to them and hang in there. Good for them. I have a lot of good intent, but not always the staying power when things get tough.

    Tracy Duffy tlduffy1962@gmail.com

    tlduffy1962@mindly.social

    >

    Like

Leave a comment