April 9, 2003
Trial Begins in Bias Suit by Deaf U.P.S. Workers
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
SAN FRANCISCO, April 8 - Lawyers for 900 deaf workers at United Parcel Service
argued today as a trial in their discrimination lawsuit opened that the company
had excluded them from numerous job categories and generally limited them to
bottom-rung positions.
Advocates for the disabled say they hope the class-action suit, one of the
largest involving deaf plaintiffs, will set a precedent that will require
companies across the nation to do more to accommodate and promote deaf
employees.
In the trial, lawyers for the 900 current and former employees say they plan to
provide evidence that U.P.S. often does not provide deaf workers with
interpreters during safety training and other meetings and has not promoted a
deaf employee to management in five years.
At a news conference outside the federal courthouse, one deaf Bay Area
employee, Babaranti Oloyede, said today that he was unable to understand
training about anthrax because the company did not provide an interpreter.
Todd Schneider, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said, "Deaf people will not
and cannot tolerate unequal treatment in the workplace."
U.P.S. officials say that their company, with one of the nation's largest work
forces, is being unfairly accused of discrimination and that it has been far
more aggressive than many other companies in employing deaf workers.
"As this case unfolds, our commitment to providing opportunity and
fairness for hearing-impaired employees will become clear," said Malcolm
Berkeley, a spokesman for the company, which is based in Atlanta. "The
claims made by the plaintiffs are distorted and give an inaccurate picture of
U.P.S."
Contending that U.P.S. has a glass ceiling for deaf workers, Larry Paradis, a
lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that it was not enough for a company to hire a
large number of disabled workers.
"It's a shameful defense to say that deaf people are entitled to nothing
more than an entry-level job," Mr. Paradis said.
Mr. Paradis, who works for Disability Rights Advocates, said the case would
last at least a month, partly because the plaintiffs plan to call more than 30
deaf employees as witnesses as well as several managers who they say will shed
light on the company's failure to accommodate its deaf workers.
After today's trial session ended, several deaf workers joined the lawyers in
detailing their complaints about the company.
"My first experience was discrimination," Bert Enos, a former package
loader, said with the help of an interpreter. "They said they would
provide an interpreter at safety meetings, and the next day there were no
interpreters."
Several deaf workers said the company barred them from driving any of its
trucks, even though Federal Express and the Postal Service allow deaf employees
to drive their vehicles.
Deaf workers also said that they were often shown training videos without
captions, that important pre-shift meetings were usually held without
interpreters and that there were emergency building evacuations without deaf
workers being properly informed.
Mr. Paradis said U.P.S., on the eve of the trial, had begun doing more to
accommodate deaf workers. He said that was tantamount to an admission of guilt.
But Mr. Berkeley said the company had a better record than most companies in
hiring and accommodating the deaf as well as other disabled workers.
"For years, we've been committed to hiring, promoting and providing
accommodation for people with disabilities," Mr. Berkeley said. "We
have a strong record of providing opportunities for the hearing impaired and
others with disabilities."