Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Service Temps Inc.
679 F.3d 323 | Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 2012
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A staffing company refused to let a deaf woman apply for a warehouse job, claiming the environment was too dangerous for her. The court ruled this violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), even though the applicant had warehouse experience. The company had to pay damages and follow new hiring rules. This matters to subcontractors because you can't reject job applicants based on disability assumptions—you must evaluate each person individually and provide reasonable accommodations.
Key Takeaways
- •Don't assume someone with a disability can't do a job. You must evaluate their actual qualifications and experience, not stereotypes about their condition.
- •Provide reasonable accommodations during the hiring process. If an applicant needs an interpreter or other support to apply, you must allow it.
- •Refusing to let someone apply because of disability costs money. The company paid back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, plus had to change hiring practices.
A Texas jury found that a corporate staffing company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to let a deaf woman apply for a warehouse job.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I reject a job applicant because I think their disability makes the job too dangerous?
No. You cannot assume someone cannot do a job based on their disability. You must evaluate their actual qualifications and work history. If they've done similar work before, that's strong evidence they can do it again. You can only reject them if they genuinely cannot perform the essential job duties even with reasonable accommodations.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.