1. Is it reasonable to conclude that the online job description implies that test-driving is part of the job? Why or why not?

2. What steps could FedEx take to avoid liability for a similar incident in the future?

3. Is the court interfering with FedEx’s legitimate safety concerns in its own business operations? Is this a concern of public safety? Why or why not?

In 2009, Richard Samson (Samson) applied for a position as a technician with Federal Express (FedEx) at its facility in Fort Myers, Florida. According to FedEx’s online job description, a successful candidate would provide timely, quality maintenance for FedEx vehicle fleet and ground support equipment, including preventative maintenance, troubleshooting, repairs, modifications, and documentation. After an interview, FedEx sent Samson, who it acknowledged was the best candidate to apply, a letter offering him the position. The letter stated that the job offer was contingent upon successful completion of a DOT medical examination because technicians were occasionally required to test drive FedEx fleet vehicles. During the medical examination, Sam-son disclosed to the medical examiner that he is a Type-1 insulin-dependent diabetic. Because insulin-dependent diabetics are automatically disqualified from being medically certified as physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce, absent an exemption, Samson failed his medical examination. Two days later, FedEx sent Samson a letter withdrawing his job offer solely because he had failed his DOT medical examination. Samson filed suit alleging a violation of the ADA by failing to hire him due to his diabetes. He argued that test-driving was not an essential function of the technician position and cited evidence of another technician who had test-driven FedEx trucks only three times in three years and never across state lines. The trial court granted Federal Express’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the job description and FedEx safety policies both satisfied the requirement that test-driving was an essential element of the job.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court’s ruling and held in favor of Samson. The court reasoned that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the test-driving requirement was truly “essential” to the job. The court considered several factors that could lead a reasonable jury to differ on whether test-driving FedEx trucks is an essential function of the technician position. The court cited evidence from other FedEx technicians that the amount of time test-driving FedEx vehicles was insignificant. 

“[Many] factors, however, weigh in favor of finding that test-driving is not an essential function of the [technician] position. First, although FedEx employs only one [technician] at its airport facility in Fort Myers, there are nine other licensed truck drivers at that facility among whom the test-driving could be distributed. In fact, Rotundo—the technician hired instead of Samson—testified that, at least on one occasion, another employee test-drove while he sat in the passenger seat diagnosing the reported mechanical problem. Second, the amount of time that the incumbent [technician] at the Fort Myers facility actually spends test-driving is miniscule. Indeed, Rotundo further testified that in the approximately three years he has been on the job, he has only test-driven FedEx trucks three times. If test-driving were such an essential function, as FedEx contends, one would expect it to be performed with regularity. Third, with respect to the current work experience of employees in similar jobs, the record shows that other FedEx [technicians] throughout Florida generally test-drive an average of about 3.71 hours per year—an insignificant portion of their total time on the job . . . This issue, therefore, should not have been taken away from the jury and resolved as a matter of law.”