## Facts

- Jerome Hoefner worked as a long-haul truck driver for Schneider National, Inc.
- After a fainting episode, Hoefner was diagnosed with neurocardiogenic syncope, a condition that can cause a sudden blood-pressure drop and fainting.
- Schneider maintained a safety policy barring drivers with neurocardiogenic syncope from driving its trucks.
- Schneider adopted the policy after another driver with the same diagnosis died when his truck went off a bridge; the company could not determine whether fainting caused the crash.
- Schneider terminated Hoefner under its policy.
- Hoefner later obtained a similar truck-driving job with another trucking company.
- The EEOC sued under the ADA, alleging Schneider terminated Hoefner because it mistakenly believed he was disabled under the ADA’s “regarded as” prong.

## Issues

1. Whether Schneider terminated Hoefner based on a mistaken belief that his condition precluded him from engaging in an activity.
2. If so, whether the activity Schneider believed he was precluded from performing was a “major life activity” (specifically, working) under the ADA.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Schneider.
- Even assuming Schneider was mistaken about the risk posed by Hoefner’s condition, the evidence showed Schneider regarded him as unfit only for a narrow set of positions (driving for Schneider under its safety policy), not as substantially limited in the major life activity of working.
- Hoefner’s ability to obtain similar employment elsewhere supported the conclusion that Schneider did not view him as unable to perform a broad class of jobs.

## Legal Principles

- In a “regarded as” ADA claim, the plaintiff must show the employer acted based on a mistaken belief that the employee is substantially limited in a major life activity.
- For the major life activity of working, inability to perform a single job, or a narrow range of jobs, is insufficient; the perceived limitation must extend to a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.
- An employer’s safety- or liability-driven exclusion from a specific high-risk position, without evidence of a perceived broad employment bar, does not establish that the employee was “regarded as” disabled under the pre-ADAAA standard.

## Conclusion

Because the record showed Schneider viewed Hoefner as unsuitable only for its own long-haul driving position under a company-specific safety rule, and not as broadly unemployable, the EEOC failed to raise a triable issue that Schneider regarded him as disabled in the major life activity of working, and summary judgment for Schneider was affirmed.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 481 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 2007)