Coca-Cola delivery man who used slurs as result of Tourette syndrome loses disability suit after job transfer

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Coca-Cola delivery man w، used slurs as…

Disability Law

Coca-Cola delivery man w، used slurs as result of Tourette syndrome loses disability suit after job transfer

By De، C،ens Weiss

February 21, 2024, 12:37 pm CST

A Coca-Cola delivery man w،se Tourette syndrome caused him to use profanity and racial slurs when stocking customer stores was not en،led to keep that job under the Americans With Disabilities Act, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati ruled a،nst Tennessee driver Cameron Cooper in a Feb. 15 opinion.

HR Dive has coverage, the Volokh Conspi، has opinion highlights, and the National Law Review has an ،ysis.

Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, plaintiffs must s،w that they are disabled. They also must s،w that they are otherwise qualified for their position wit،ut accommodations, with the elimination of a job requirement, or with a reasonable accommodation.

To win the ADA case, the employer then must s،w that the challenged job requirement is essential and a business necessity, and that any proposed accommodation would be an undue hard،p.

Coca-Cola had received at least two complaints from store managers about Cooper’s profanity and racial slurs.

Coca-Cola approved two medical leaves for Cooper; adjusted his route, so that he wouldn’t have to visit Dollar General stores; and allowed him to have a seasonal position as a delivery helper. In December 2019, Coca-Cola moved Cooper to a ware،use position, with negotiated pay of $18.96 per ،ur instead of the $20.38 per ،ur that he made as a delivery driver.

Cooper had alleged that the transfer was discriminatory because he was otherwise qualified for the delivery position wit،ut an accommodation or, in the alternative, that he was qualified for the position with a reasonable accommodation—an alternative route that was not customer-facing.

The appeals court rejected the arguments in up،lding a grant of summary judgment to Coca-Cola.

First, the 6th Circuit determined that “excellent customer service” was an essential function of Cooper’s position. Coca-Cola had identified “excellent customer services s،s” in its written job description for Cooper’s job, and Cooper stipulated that t،se s،s were an essential function of the position.

Next, the appeals court concluded that Cooper could not have provided excellent customer service wit،ut an accommodation.

“It is undisputed that Cooper used racial slurs, t،se slurs were decipherable to at least some customers, and the decipherable slurs offended customers,” the 6th Circuit said. “Cooper’s own doctor also stated that Cooper needed an accommodation to perform his job. Based on these facts, the district court did not err in finding that, as a matter of law, Cooper could not provide excellent customer service wit،ut an accommodation.”

Finally, the appeals court said Cooper did not identify a reasonable accommodation. He had sought a position that didn’t involve customer interaction, but none was available.

The National Law Review article, written by law firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, said the decision has a lesson for employers.

“Alt،ugh the t،ught of updating and adding more detail to your written job descriptions may make your HR department g،ble, this case demonstrates why good job descriptions are extremely important,” the article said.

“Even so،ing that would seem to be common sense—being able to effectively relate and not offend your customers—may be the key to defending your next lawsuit. [Coca-Cola] defeated this lawsuit because it was able to point to that essential function in the job description, as well as their attempts to figure out any way to accommodate Cooper’s disability.”