Opinion ID: 3039151
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Driving “Safely”

Text: UPS suggests that beyond compliance with prerequisites unconnected to the DOT standard, Bates also bears the burden of proving that at least one individual in the class was a “qualified individual with a disability” in the sense of being able to perform the “essential function” of driving “safely.” We reject that contention as inconsistent with the language of the ADA. 11 UPS also maintains that there is no “evidence in the record that Oloyede had the requisite seniority to drive at his facility before becoming an Article 22.3 employee.” This fact, even if true, is also of no moment, as UPS’s policy does not require a certain level of seniority, but rather encompasses a seniority preference. 12 For similar reasons, UPS’s contention that the “claims or defenses” of Oloyede are not “typical of the claims or defenses of the class,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3), fails. Citing East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, UPS contends that Oloyede must be “qualified” in the sense that he satisfied the basic prerequisites for the driving position and thus is “typical” of the class and subclass he seeks to represent. See 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977). We review class certification decisions for abuse of discretion, see Smith v. Univ. of Wash., Law Sch., 233 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2000), and hold — for the reasons recited in the text — that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding Oloyede qualified in the pertinent sense and hence “typical.” BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 17491
Subsection (a) of § 12112 of the ADA, headed “General rule,” provides the following: “No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.”13 Subsection (8) of § 12111 defines a “qualified individual with a disability” as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” § 12111(8). Subsection (b) of § 12112, headed “Construction,” states that “[a]s used in subsection (a) of this section, the term ‘discriminate’ includes” seven types of employer actions — as pertinent here, using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity.14 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6). Section 12113(a), headed “In general,” describes the defenses available to employers: 13 The parties agree that UPS is a “covered entity” within the meaning of § 12111(2), (5) and that individuals who cannot pass the DOT hearing standard are “disabled” within the meaning of § 12102(2). 14 Bates does not challenge UPS’s standard under § 12112(d), which covers in detail the propriety of medical examinations under the ADA. We therefore do not reach how § 12112(d) might apply in the present case. 17492 BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE It may be a defense to a charge of discrimination under this chapter that an alleged application of qualification standards, tests, or selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out or otherwise deny a job or benefit to an individual with a disability has been shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and such performance cannot be accomplished by reasonable accommodation, as required under this subchapter. [4] UPS’s hearing standard is clearly a “qualification standard[ ] . . . that screen[s] out . . . a class of individuals with disabilities,” § 12112(b)(6). On its face, the standard excludes individuals whom the parties agree are “disabled” from consideration for driving positions. Thus, UPS’s use of the hearing standard is “discrimination” under § 12112(b)(6), “unless the standard . . . is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity.” § 12112(b)(6). [5] The word “unless” suggests that UPS bears the burden under § 12112(b)(6) of establishing that the standard is jobrelated and consistent with business necessity. See NLRB v. Ky. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706, 711 (2001) (stating the “general rule of statutory construction that the burden of proving justification or exemption under a special exception to the prohibitions of a statute generally rests on one who claims its benefits” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We have noted that “the two versions of the general business necessity defense,” in §§ 12112(b)(6) and 12113(a), are “intended to encompass the same basic requirements,” Morton, 272 F.3d at 1257 n.8, and have held that the burden of proving that a qualification standard is job-related and consistent with business necessity under § 12113(a) falls squarely on the defendant, see id. at 1258; Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2001). It follows that the defendant has the burden of establishing that a qualification standard is jobBATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 17493 related and consistent with business necessity under both §§ 12112(b)(6) and 12113(a). UPS argues, however, that even if this is so, plaintiffs must first establish that the challenged standard excludes individuals who can perform the “essential function” of driving “safely.” UPS’s argument is premised on: (1) § 12112(a)’s statement that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability”; (2) § 12111(8)’s definition of “qualified individual with a disability” as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires”; and (3) our cases holding that plaintiffs ordinarily must establish that they are “qualified individuals with disabilities.” See, e.g., Kennedy, 90 F.3d at 1481. If UPS were correct, then, as a practical matter, the plaintiff would bear the burden of proving that a categorical and specific safety qualification is not valid under the statute, by showing that at least some individuals who cannot meet it are capable of driving safely. That distribution of the burden of proof in a case such as this one is incompatible with the statutory scheme.
Section 12112(a) does not stand alone in the ADA. Section 12112(b), which includes § 12112(b)(6), is headed “Construction”15 and begins with, “As used in subsection (a) . . . the term ‘discriminate’ includes . . . .” Section 12112(b)(6) thus describes one instance of what constitutes unlawful “discriminat[ion]” under the statute — “using qualification standards . . . that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities 15 While “the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text,” “[f]or interpretative purposes, [the heading of a section is] of use . . . when [it] shed[s] light on some ambiguous word or phrase.” Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 529 (1947). 17494 BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE unless the standard . . . is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity.” Critically, § 12112(b)(6) and its parallel affirmative defense, § 12113(a), apply where “an individual with a disability,” not a “qualified individual with a disability,” is excluded. It is this statutory provision, and not the ones UPS cites, that properly guide our analysis. Plaintiffs thus do not bear the burden under § 12112(b)(6) of proving that individuals who cannot meet the qualification standard nevertheless are “qualified” with regard to the essential job function the standard addresses — here, safety.16 We took a similar approach to interpreting another provision of the ADA in Fredenburg v. Contra Costa County Department of Health Services, which held that individuals need not be “qualified individuals with disabilities” to bring a challenge to a medical examination under § 12112(d)(4). 172 F.3d 1176, 1182 (9th Cir. 1999). We so held even though Section 12112(d)(1) provides that “In general,” “[t]he prohibition against discrimination as referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall include medical examinations and inquiries.” Fredenburg emphasized that the particular prohibition contained in Section 12112(d)(4) concerning medical examinations “refer[s] to ‘employees’ . . . not ‘qualified individuals with a disability.’ ” Id. Here, as in Fredenburg, the directly pertinent statutory section does not refer to “qualified individuals with disabilities.” Rather, that section — § 12112(b)(6) — refers to “individuals with disabilities.” (emphasis added). 16 Moreover, the ability to drive “safely,” while critically important for a commercial driver, is not a self-defining quality. All employers tolerate some risk of vehicle accidents, and each evaluates that risk in its own way. Where, as here, the employer bars employees because of their disability from any individualized assessment of their safe driving ability, employees cannot be expected to establish through different criteria, not used by the employer, that they are safe to some unspecified degree. BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 17495 We recognize that § 12112(b) states that “[a]s used in subsection (a), the term ‘discriminate’ includes” the employer actions described in subsections (b)(1) through (b)(7). One might argue, therefore, that § 12112(b)(6) elaborates only on the single word “discriminate” used in § 12112(a), and that § 12112(a)’s requirement that discrimination be directed against “qualified individuals with disabilities” still applies even when § 12112(b)(6) — or any other subsection of § 12112(b) — is at issue. Examination of the other subsections of § 12112(b) and of the role of § 12112(b)(6) in the statute as a whole leads us to conclude that this understanding of the statute is untenable. First, the imposition of a requirement that all ADA Title I plaintiffs initially establish that they are “qualified individuals with disabilities” would be utterly incoherent with regard to one of the other subsections, § 12112(b)(4). That section prohibits discrimination against a “qualified individual” known to associate with an individual with a disability. Section 12112(b)(4) thus protects qualified individuals who do not themselves have disabilities and thus could not possibly meet any general “qualified individual with a disability” requirement. Second, if the statute is viewed as ambiguous because of the “qualified individual with a disability” language in § 12112(a), the relevant legislative history supports our conclusion regarding the interaction of § 12112(a) and 12112(b)(6). See Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Hammond, 384 F.3d 674, 692 (9th Cir. 2004) (providing that we may consult legislative history if a statutory provision is ambiguous), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1187 (2005). Especially instructive are the committee reports, which the Supreme Court has said are “authoritative source[s] for finding the Legislature’s intent.” Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 76 (1984). The committee reports discuss the section of the ADA codified as § 12112(b)(6) and treat § 12112(b)(6) as a stand-alone provision, making no reference to the “qualified individual with a 17496 BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE disability” language in § 12112(a).17 For example, the report of the House Judiciary Committee described the section codified at § 12112(b)(6) by noting: This section prohibits the use of qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out persons with disabilities, unless the criteria are shown to be jobrelated [sic] and consistent with business necessity. If an employer uses a facially neutral qualification standard, employment test or other selection criterion that has a discriminatory effect on persons with disabilities, this practice would be discriminatory unless the employer can demonstrate that it is jobrelated [sic] and required by business necessity. H. REP. NO. 101-485, pt. 3, at 42 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, 465 (emphases added); see also S. REP. NO. 101-116, at 37 (1989) (“If a person with a disability applies for a job and meets all selection criteria except one that he or she cannot meet because of a disability, the criteria [sic] must concern an essential, non-marginal aspect of the job, and be carefully tailored to measure the person’s actual ability to do this essential function of the job.” (emphases added)); S. REP. NO. 101-116, at 27 (“[T]his legislation pro17 The pertinent EEOC guidance similarly treats § 12112(b)(6)’s prohibition against inadequately justified qualification standards as an independent statutory requirement: [J]ob criteria that even unintentionally screen out, or tend to screen out, an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities because of their disability may not be used unless the employer demonstrates that that criteria, as used by the employer, are job-related to the position to which they are being applied and are consistent with business necessity. 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app. (Section 1630.10) (emphasis added). BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 17497 hibits use of a blanket rule excluding people with certain disabilities except in the very limited situation where in all cases physical condition by its very nature would prevent the person with a disability from performing the essential functions of the job, even with reasonable accommodations.” (emphasis added)). Particularly significant is the report of the House Committee on Education and Labor, which states: The Committee intends that the burden of proof under [the sections that were codified at § 12112(b)(1), (5)-(6)] be construed in the same manner in which parallel agency provisions are construed under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as of June 4, 1989. See, e.g., . . . 29 C.F.R. 32.14 (Department of Labor). H. REP. NO. 101-485, pt. 2, at 72 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 354; see also H. REP. NO. 101-485, pt. 3, at 42 n.32. The cited regulation places the burden on employers to ensure that to the extent job qualifications tend to exclude handicapped individuals because of their handicap, they are related to the performance of the job and are consistent with business necessity and safe performance. . . . The recipient shall have the burden to demonstrate that it has complied with the requirements of this paragraph. 29 C.F.R. § 32.14 (1988) (emphases added); see also Bentivegna v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 694 F.2d 619, 621-22 (9th Cir. 1982) (applying 29 C.F.R. § 32.14). To place on Bates the burden of demonstrating that the DOT standard excludes some individuals who can drive “safely” cannot be squared with this preexisting regulation. 17498 BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE As UPS points out, many of our cases have stated in general terms that ADA plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that they are “qualified individuals with disabilities.” See, e.g., Hutton v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 273 F.3d 884, 892 (9th Cir. 2001); Kennedy, 90 F.3d at 1481. See also Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2006); Cleveland v. Pol’y Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 806 (1999) (“An ADA plaintiff bears the burden of proving that she is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’— that is, a person ‘who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions’ of her job.” (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8))). These cases, however, have, for the most part, not concerned challenges to a categorical qualification standard under §§ 12112(b)(6) and § 12113(a) and thus do not take account of how plaintiffs’ burdens are different when those provisions apply. See, e.g., Hutton, 273 F.3d at 889 (determining whether a particular employee was a “direct threat” under § 12113(b)); Weyer, 198 F.3d at 1108 (determining whether a provision in an employer’s disability policy violated the ADA); Kennedy, 90 F.3d at 1481 (considering an employment termination claim where no qualification standard was at issue); see also Dark, 451 F.3d at 1086 (same); Cleveland, 526 U.S. at 806 (same).18 Cripe and Morton, our two cases that have considered qualification standards, are consistent with the approach we adopt today. 18 Other circuits have held that when the “direct threat” defense in § 12113(b) applies, plaintiffs have the burden to establish they can perform their jobs safely as part of their burden to prove they are “qualified individuals with disabilities,” if safe job performance is an “essential function” of the position. See, e.g., McKenzie v. Benton, 388 F.3d 1342, 135556 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1048 (2005); EEOC v. Amego, Inc., 110 F.3d 135, 144 (1st Cir. 1997). In our circuit, however, the direct threat defense is distinct from the business necessity defense and applies only when the safety-based reason for excluding an employee is “not for reasons related to their performance of their jobs.” Morton, 272 F.3d at 1259. Thus, the circumstances in which a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing she can perform her job safely in those other circuits — when performing her job “safely” is an “essential function” — never arise in our circuit in the context of the direct threat defense. BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 17499 Cripe states that “[t]he ADA prohibits employment discrimination only against ‘qualified individual[s]’ with disabilities” and that “[i]f a disabled person cannot perform a job’s ‘essential functions’ (even with a reasonable accommodation), then the ADA’s employment protections do not apply.” 261 F.3d at 884 (alteration in original) (quoting § 12112(a)). In Cripe, however, the dispute about whether the plaintiffs were “qualified individuals with disabilities” concerned not whether they could safely perform the job functions in question — it was clear that they could not — but whether the job functions they could not perform were essential to the desired positions.19 See id. at 885. There was no reason in Cripe to consider the burdens of proof with regard to whether or not a prescribed qualification standard the employer used to assess the ability to perform a job safely discriminated on the basis of disability. Cripe, therefore, did not consider the question we address today. Morton followed Cripe and, in large part, forecast the resolution of the burden of proof question we adopt today. In Morton, UPS did not contend that Morton had to show that she was a “qualified individual with a disability” in the sense that she could drive “safely.” Instead, UPS made its argument that deaf drivers cannot drive safely only as part of its “business necessity” defense, and Morton proceeded to address the safety issue only in that context. 272 F.3d at 1257. In contrast, Morton treated a separate qualification-standard issue — whether an essential function of any driving position was being able to drive any UPS vehicle — in the same manner as Cripe had handled the parallel question. See id. at 1254. As 19 UPS makes much of Cripe’s statement that “we” would “first consider whether the plaintiffs are . . . ‘qualified individuals,’ ” and “we” would “then consider the City’s argument that . . . the policies are ‘job-related’ and ‘consistent with business necessity.’ ” 261 F.3d at 886 (emphasis added). That statement indicated only the order in which in the opinion considered the issues. It did not indicate that plaintiffs always bear the burden of proof on the first issue, even when an asserted qualification is challenged as discriminatory under § 12112(b)(6). 17500 BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE Morton came after Cripe, the distinction in Morton’s approach to two different “qualified individual with disability” issues confirms our understanding that Cripe is fully consistent with today’s holding. Indeed, Morton necessarily assumed the result we reach today. Morton held that when a safety-related qualification standard that excludes a class of individuals with disabilities is at issue, the employer satisfies its burden under the business necessity defense if it can show that either (1) “substantially all [excluded individuals with disabilities] present a higher risk” than individuals not excluded, or (2) “there are no practical criteria for determining which [excluded individuals with disabilities] present a heightened risk and which do not.” Id. at 1263. Were we to hold that Bates bears the burden of establishing that at least some deaf individuals are capable of driving safely, the Morton affirmative defense would be rendered almost entirely pointless. It necessarily follows from a showing that the policy excludes some individuals capable of performing the job safely that it is not true that “substantially all” individuals excluded by the qualification standard present a higher-than-normal risk.20 And if a plaintiff illustrates that a qualification standard excludes individuals capable of safely performing the essential functions of a job, she has demonstrated that there are “criteria for determining which [excluded individuals with disabilities] present a heightened risk and which do not.” Id.
[6] We therefore hold that when a plaintiff challenges a categorical “qualification standard,” the plaintiff does not have the burden of establishing that that qualification standard excludes “qualified individuals with disabilities.” Rather, to establish statutory standing, the plaintiff has the burden of 20 We read the word “substantially” to express the notion that the proof that all excluded individuals are unsafe need not be air-tight. BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 17501 establishing that she meets other qualifications, unrelated to the challenged standard. In addition, the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the challenged qualification standard “screen[s] out or tend[s] to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities.” § 12112(b)(6). The burden then shifts to the employer to establish the business necessity defense.21 Two observations about this holding are in order. First, by holding that plaintiffs challenging a qualification standard do not have the burden of establishing that the standard excludes “qualified individuals with disabilities,” we are in no way suggesting that the ADA requires employers to hire unqualified individuals with disabilities. To the contrary, the business necessity defense ensures that employers will not be required to hire unqualified individuals, but channels the qualification inquiry in part into an affirmative defense. Second, the burden-shifting framework we apply today per21 We note that our understanding of the parties’ burdens of proof in a case such as this one is consistent with that of the most similar case we have found, Monette. In Monette, the Sixth Circuit held: [I]f the plaintiff has direct evidence that the employer relied on his or her disability in making an adverse employment decision, or if the employer admits reliance on the handicap: 1) The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he or she is “disabled.” 2) The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he or she is “otherwise qualified” for the position despite his or her disability: a) without accommodation from the employer; b) with an alleged “essential” job requirement eliminated; or c) with a proposed reasonable accommodation. 3) The employer will bear the burden of proving that a challenged job criterion is essential, and therefore a business necessity, or that a proposed accommodation will impose an undue hardship upon the employer. 90 F.3d at 1186. 17502 BATES v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE tains to cases testing whether an employer may use a particular qualification standard, not to cases testing whether an employer must hire a particular individual. If a court finds against an employer under the framework outlined in this opinion, it follows only that the employer may not use the qualification standard, not that a person challenging the standard must be hired. The usual statutory standards apply when an employer does not apply a categorical exclusion that precludes disabled persons from ever obtaining an individualized determination but instead makes an individualized determination.