Strafford, Missouri-based Wilson Logistics is involved in a discrimination lawsuit in federal court for refusing to hire a deaf truck driver.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit against Wilson Logistics for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that the transportation company denied employment to a qualified truck driver who is deaf.

The deaf truck driver involved in the case has had a medical exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration since 2021. In addition to a CDL license, the man had professional experience as a truck driver, which qualified him for an open position as a driver at Wilson Logistics.

In January 2023, the truck driver contacted Wilson Logistics’ employment line through a video relay service. The relay interpreter told the company representative that she was calling on the driver’s behalf. However, the company representative stated that Wilson could not accept a deaf applicant.

“I cannot let anyone in who cannot read, write and speak English,” the representative said, according to court documents. “That is a requirement of the Department of Transportation.”

The truck driver told the Wilson Logistics representative that he had a valid CDL license and truck driving experience. He was told that the company “cannot hire anyone who knows sign language” because “that is one of our requirements.”

At the time of the call, Wilson Logistics was in the process of hiring truck drivers and was filling the vacancies immediately. The deaf truck driver had no chance to even apply for these positions.

According to the lawsuit, Wilson Logistics’ job posting for drivers asks, “Can you read, write and speak English?” However, deaf truck drivers are not given an opportunity to indicate on the application that they use sign language or that they have a special permit from the Department of Transportation.

The driver filed a complaint with the EEOC, allowing Wilson Logistics to resolve the issue without going to court. However, no resolution was reached, which led to the subsequent filing of a lawsuit.

The EEOC is asking the federal court to stop Wilson Logistics from rejecting deaf truck drivers. The agency is demanding that the company compensate the driver with back pay and non-pecuniary damages and make him a conditional offer of employment. In addition, the EEOC is seeking a court order requiring the trucking company to:

• Policies that ensure equal employment opportunities for disabled people and aim to eliminate the effects of past and ongoing illegal employment practices
• Job applications that ensure equal opportunities for people with disabilities
• A training program on the discrimination laws of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which includes an explanation of the FMCSA driver qualification exemption.

“An employer cannot reject an applicant based on a disability without conducting an individual investigation,” Melinda Dugas, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District, said in a statement. “The EEOC will continue to litigate cases in which qualified individuals with disabilities are summarily excluded from the application process.”

EEOC case against Werner

The lawsuit against Wilson Logistics is similar to the EEOC’s complaint against Werner Enterprises, which involves a deaf truck driver.

In this case, the lawsuit began as a single discrimination claim by a deaf truck driver with a CDL license and an FMCSA medical exemption. However, the EEOC uncovered Werner’s policy of not hiring deaf drivers. During the trial, Werner’s vice president of safety and compliance testified that the company continues to deny job offers to hearing-impaired drivers.

A federal jury awarded the driver $75,000 in compensatory damages and $36 million in punitive damages, an amount significantly reduced in January because federal law caps the amount of punitive damages in EEOC discrimination cases at $300,000.

In addition, Werner must submit reports on its hiring practices for deaf truck drivers. The company must submit a report every six months for the next three years.

An appeal of the final judgment is pending in the Eighth Circuit Court. LL