Pagenkopf v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Jeffrey Pagenkopf, a UPS package handler, brought three disability-discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act: failure to promote, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. He alleged that UPS did not promote him to a package-driver position because he is deaf and did not provide reasonable accommodations that would have allowed him to perform the driver position.

Pagenkopf was born profoundly deaf, uses American Sign Language as his primary language, and generally communicates at work through writing. UPS had previously provided him with sign-language interpreters for extended trainings and meetings. He had a driver’s license, drove regularly, and had no moving or parking violations in more than ten years.

Pagenkopf won bids for several driver positions. UPS did not award him the first position because he lacked the federal certification then required by UPS’s internal policy. After he obtained a federal exemption in 2014, he passed a road test, but UPS delayed or postponed his entry into New Service Provider Training, which UPS treated as essential to driver safety. UPS also declined to provide an American Sign Language interpreter for the training.

UPS later told Pagenkopf that it would not promote him because it believed no reasonable accommodation would allow him to communicate with customers through two-way intercoms. Pagenkopf proposed prerecorded messages, writing with customers, leaving notes for later delivery attempts, voice-to-text and text-to-voice applications, video relay services, video remote interpreting, and other possible technologies or arrangements. The opinion states that UPS did not follow up on certain video-interpretation options suggested by a Minnesota Department of Human Services employee.

After a union grievance, Pagenkopf obtained a full-time package-handler position through a settlement. The position had a lower long-term pay scale than the driver position. UPS moved for summary judgment on all three claims.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. The nonmoving party must identify specific evidence creating a genuine issue for trial.

Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, an employer may not discriminate in employment or upgrading based on disability. A disability-discrimination plaintiff must show that he is disabled, qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability. An employer must reasonably accommodate a known disability unless doing so would create an undue hardship.

Court’s analysis

The parties did not dispute that Pagenkopf was disabled under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The court also concluded that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability, even though UPS hired him for a full-time position, because that position had a lower long-term pay scale than the driver position.

The main dispute concerned whether Pagenkopf could perform the driver position’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation. The court concluded that UPS had shown that customer communication—including communication through intercoms—was an essential function. The evidence showed that drivers communicated with customers, gained access to secured buildings, responded to members of the public, and handled delivery situations requiring communication. The court also concluded that driver training was an essential function because of the safety concerns associated with operating a UPS truck.

The court nevertheless found genuine disputes of material fact. Pagenkopf’s proposed accommodations were not inherently unreasonable, and the evidence pointed both ways on whether those accommodations would allow him to communicate with customers through two-way intercoms. The court also found a factual dispute about whether he could successfully complete New Service Provider Training with reasonable accommodations, including interpreters, closed captioning, and written communication during portions of on-road training.

Disposition

The court denied United Parcel Service, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion’s order does not grant judgment to either side on the three claims; it leaves the identified factual disputes unresolved.