## Facts

- UPS required all package-car driver applicants to satisfy the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing standard as part of a DOT physical.
- DOT hearing regulations applied only to drivers of commercial motor vehicles above a weight threshold (over 10,000 pounds GVWR); many UPS package-cars were below that threshold.
- A nationwide class of deaf and hard-of-hearing UPS employees and applicants was categorically screened out from package-car driver positions by the hearing requirement.
- The parties stipulated that the ability to drive safely was an essential function of the package-car driver job.
- After a bifurcated bench trial, the district court found UPS’s across-the-board DOT hearing requirement unlawful under the ADA and related California statutes and ordered injunctive relief limiting use of the DOT standard for non-DOT vehicles.
- UPS appealed; the case was heard en banc after panel review.

## Issues

1. Whether a blanket requirement that all package-car drivers meet the DOT hearing standard, including for non-DOT-regulated vehicles, is a lawful ADA qualification standard justified as job-related and consistent with business necessity.
2. Whether ADA challenges to facially neutral qualification standards proceed through Title VII–style disparate-impact doctrine or through the ADA’s specific framework in 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(b)(6) and 12113.
3. Whether the same policy violates California FEHA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act to the extent it exceeds what disability-discrimination law permits.

## Decision

- The court held UPS’s categorical application of the DOT hearing standard to positions involving non-DOT-regulated vehicles violated the ADA because UPS did not prove the standard was job-related and consistent with business necessity for that context.
- The court recognized UPS may lawfully require compliance with DOT hearing standards for positions that actually require driving DOT-regulated vehicles.
- The court concluded ADA claims challenging qualification standards that screen out disabled individuals arise under the ADA’s statutory scheme and need not import Title VII disparate-impact doctrine.
- The court affirmed ADA-based liability for the non-DOT vehicle context and applied substantially similar reasoning to FEHA and the Unruh Act to the same extent.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, including for remedy-related matters and appropriate tailoring of relief.

## Legal Principles

- Using a qualification standard that “screens out or tends to screen out” a class of individuals with disabilities violates the ADA unless the employer proves the standard is job-related, consistent with business necessity, and cannot be satisfied through reasonable accommodation.  
- Safety-based qualification standards are permitted only when the employer substantiates their necessity for the specific job duties and conditions at issue.
- Essential functions (e.g., safe driving) are distinct from qualification standards (e.g., a particular hearing threshold); the employer must justify the chosen standard as necessary to perform the essential function.
- An employer may rely on mandatory federal safety regulations when they govern the position, but may not extend those regulatory standards to non-covered jobs without independent ADA justification.
- Under FEHA and the Unruh Act, disability-discrimination analysis may track the ADA for comparable claims, subject to remedy differences on remand.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that UPS could follow DOT hearing standards for DOT-regulated driving positions, but could not impose the DOT hearing requirement on non-DOT package-car jobs without proving business necessity and lack of reasonable accommodation under the ADA; the case was remanded for further proceedings on relief.


Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)