University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE EE-CA-0244
Docket / Court 3:97-cv-00961-WHA ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In March 1997, a lawsuit was brought by the Cleveland and San Francisco District Offices of the EEOC against United Parcel Service under the Americans with Disabilities Act to oppose the defendant's policy of categorically excluding persons with little or no vision in one of their eyes from ... read more >
In March 1997, a lawsuit was brought by the Cleveland and San Francisco District Offices of the EEOC against United Parcel Service under the Americans with Disabilities Act to oppose the defendant's policy of categorically excluding persons with little or no vision in one of their eyes from positions driving smaller vehicles. Plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit in February 1998 and December 1999.

In August 1999, the case was reassigned to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Following extensive discovery, failed motions for summary judgment by all parties, and a bench trial, the District Court granted judgment for the defendant in part and the EEOC and intervenor in party in December 2000. All parties appealed the lawsuit to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit affirmed the decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case in October, 2002. The 9th Circuit held "that for a monocular individual to show that his impairment is a substantial limitation on the major life activity of seeing, the impairment must prevent or severely restrict use of his eyesight compared with how unimpaired individuals normally use their eyesight in daily life." E.E.O.C. v. United Parcel Service, 306 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2002). The 9th Circuit found that two of the applicants were not disabled under that standard, but remanded the case for the district court to "determine in the first instance whether, under this standard, UPS perceived that the claimants were substantially limited in seeing." Id.

Following the remand, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the defendant in May 2003 and then granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and against particular claims of the intervenor plaintiffs in July 2003, terminating the case.

Following termination of the case, the intervenors failed to secure an injunction pending their appeal to the 9th Circuit in October 2007. The EEOC and intervenors appealed the District Court's decision to the 9th Circuit in September 2003. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, and the District Court entered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the intervenors in May 2006.

All parties filed motions for attorney's fees following this judgment. In September 2006, the District Court granted the motions in part and denied them in part. The intervenor appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit in October 2006. We do not have any information following this appeal.

Kevin Wilemon - 03/18/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-area
Hiring
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 12111 et seq.
Defendant(s) United Parcel Service
United Parcel Service
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2000
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:97-cv-00961-WHA (N.D. Cal.) 02/23/2007
EE-CA-0244-9000 PDF | Detail
General Documents
Opinion [Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law After Bench Trial and Injunction with Temporary Stay Pending Appeal] 12/12/2000 (149 F.Supp.2d 1115) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0244-0003 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order Granting In Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 12/12/2000 (2000 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 18986) (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0244-0004 PDF | LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
Judges Alsup, William Haskell (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0244-0004
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -