U.S. District Court finds plaintiff not disabled under ADA standards

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Feb 7, 2005 by Helen Nguyen

Despite the fact the plaintiff could not return to his previous job of driving trucks for his former employer because of 20/200 vision in his right eye following a stroke, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York held he was not disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against his former employer.

In granting summary judgment to the employer, Judge John T. Elfvin in Daniel W. Johnson v. Roadway Express, Inc. held that even though the plaintiff could not drive trucks for his former employer because of his eyesight, the plaintiff was still capable of driving other types of trucks and performing other work. As a result, he did not meet the standards for being disabled under the ADA.

Plaintiff's Claim

In October 2003, the plaintiff, Daniel W. Johnson, filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Roadway Express, Inc., a truck company which transports industrial, commercial and retail goods.

Johnson worked as a line haul truck driver, where he was required to drive across state lines and was responsible for tractor-trailer rigs that had a maximum gross vehicle weight of up to 80,000 pounds.

Following a stroke, an incurable scar occurred on Johnson's retina resulting in him only having 20/200 vision in his right eye. Because he could not see long distances with his right eye and had difficulties with depth perception - neither of which could be remedied by corrective lenses - Roadway Express refused to allow him to return to his job. The company also had no other jobs (e.g., truck driving, clerical) available for him that he was capable of performing.

ADA Standard

In reviewing Johnson's claim that he was disabled, the court referred to the ADA's definition of a disability.

The ADA protects people with disabilities, defined as individuals with 'a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.' 42 USC Section 12102(2)(A), explained Judge Elfvin. For plaintiff to qualify for ADA protections, his 'impairment' must 'substantially limit' a 'major life activity.'

Based on this standard, the court held Johnson was not disabled.

Specifically, the court noted that while Johnson's loss of vision prevented him from returning to his job with Roadway Express, it did not affect his ability to drive an automobile or other commercial vehicles. Johnson has a class K driver's license which allows him to drive commercial vehicles intrastate that have a gross vehicle weight of 26,000 pounds, and he was able to find a full-time job driving dump trucks and triaxial trucks for a construction company.

[P]laintiff's truck driving job with defendant is a specific job within a broader class of truck driving jobs, wrote Judge Elfvin. It is undisputed that plaintiff cannot fulfill the specific requirements, as set out by the DOT, of driving 80,000 pound trucks interstate, but he can fulfill the requirements of driving 26,000 pound trucks intrastate. Therefore, plaintiff failed to set forth evidence sufficient to establish that he is - or was perceived to be - substantially limited in his ability to perform a major life activity.

Finding Johnson was not disabled under the ADA, the court granted Roadway Express's motion for summary judgment and dismissed his claims.