قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Trucking firm settles EEOC suit over preemployment screenings

Trucking firm settles EEOC suit over preemployment screenings



A national trucking firm that contracted with a third party to administer preemployment screening or truck driving job applicants filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The EEOC said in its statement Thursday that Greely, Colorado-based JBS Carriers Inc., which is the transportation affiliate of multinational meat processor JBS USA Holdings Inc., contracted with Denver-based ErgoMed System to administer the preemployment screening

The EEOC unlawfully screened out people with disabilities who were qualified for the truck driving jobs they sought and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act

The agency said this screening subjected all applicants to a medical history questionnaire, in physical examination and nine physical abilities tests, and if in applicant failed one of the tests, ErgoMed with a negative job recommendation to JBS, which withdrew conditional jobs based on its recommendations.

The EEOC said JBS no longer uses ErgoMed and now only requires job applicants to obtain the Department of Transportation medical certification necessar

Under terms of settlement, JBS will not contract with ErgoMed for three years and not implement any physical or medical screening for conditional hires apart from the DOT medical certification and in urine analysis, among other provisions

The $ 250,000 settlement payment will be distributed among five individuals who were adversely impacted by the ErgoMed screening and who participated in the EEOC investigation, the EEOC said.

EEOC Denver field office director Amy Burkholder said in a statement, " The ADA prohibits arbitrary medical screens and onerous physical tests. The EEOC will continue to be contractual or contracting arrangements that employers may have with companies like ErgoMed. ”

In 201

5, an Indianapolis trucking firm agreed to pay $ 200,000 to pay for it. EEOC disability discrimination case in which it was charged with requiring preemployment medical exams.


Source link