The EEOC filed suit against Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain (USA), in federal court in Atlanta, alleging the international logistics company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying a reasonable accommodation to a disabled temporary employee in January 2023. The employee, who has sickle cell disorder that can be triggered by extreme cold, was required to work significant time in a cooler at the company's Forest Park, Georgia warehouse.
According to the complaint, when a new supervisor assigned the employee to work only in the cooler, she requested an accommodation to either work shorter periods in the cold environment or be assigned to two other available positions that did not require entering the cooler. "Even though she worked in the non-cooler assignments for most of her employment with Exel, the company denied her request and said it does not accommodate medical restrictions," the EEOC stated in its press release.
The agency alleges that shortly after denying the accommodation request, DHL Supply Chain discharged the employee. The company then hired all other temporary employees for full-time positions except for the former employee, costing her a permanent position. The EEOC is seeking back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.
The lawsuit comes as the EEOC continues to prioritize disability discrimination enforcement, particularly challenging blanket policies that refuse accommodations without individualized assessments. The case highlights how employers must engage in the interactive process required under the ADA when employees request reasonable accommodations, rather than adopting categorical refusal policies.
"Federal law requires that employers accommodate disabled employees when it is not an undue hardship to do so," said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC's Atlanta District Office. "In this case, Exel could have easily assigned the employee to work in the other roles that did not require going into the cooler or limited her time working in the cooler."
Darrell E. Graham, district director of the EEOC's Atlanta District Office, emphasized that "employers cannot adopt blanket policies refusing to accommodate restrictions. Doing so denies disabled employees the interactive process required by law. The facts in this case make clear that accommodation was possible."
The EEOC filed the lawsuit after attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case underscores the importance of individualized accommodation assessments and highlights potential liability for companies that maintain inflexible policies regarding employee medical restrictions.